Your Votes Please -- Dozen Most Important Physics Breaktrhoughs Since 1900 -- And Why?
Jay R. Yablon
years" time frame), I'd like to ask people to please list what they
believe are the top dozen *theoretical* breakthroughs in physics since
1900, and their reasons why.
I will withhold my list for the moment, other than to put General Theory
of Relativity as #1.
Next week, I will reveal the rest of the "correct answers" to this quiz.
;-)
Jay.
____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email: jya...@nycap.rr.com
co-moderator: sci.physics.foundations
Weblog: http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/
Web Site: http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm
FrediFizzx
news:6ih0obF...@mid.individual.net...
> Following from my reply to Fred in the last post (relating to the
> "100 years" time frame), I'd like to ask people to please list what
> they believe are the top dozen *theoretical* breakthroughs in
> physics since 1900, and their reasons why.
>
> I will withhold my list for the moment, other than to put General
> Theory of Relativity as #1.
>
> Next week, I will reveal the rest of the "correct answers" to this
> quiz. ;-)
Some right off the top,
Planck constant theory
SR
GR
Schrödinger Equation
Uncertainty Principle
Dirac Equation
Electroweak theory
Quark theory
Standard Model for particles
Best,
Fred Diether
FrediFizzx
news:6ih7ggF...@mid.individual.net...
The "why" part for all of these can be easily found online. ;-)
Best,
Fred Diether
Oh No
>"Jay R. Yablon" <jya...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message news:6ih0obFqdc
>lj...@mid.individual.net...
>> Following from my reply to Fred in the last post (relating to the
>>"100 years" time frame), I'd like to ask people to please list what
>>they believe are the top dozen *theoretical* breakthroughs in physics
>>since 1900, and their reasons why.
>>
>> I will withhold my list for the moment, other than to put General
>>Theory of Relativity as #1.
>>
>> Next week, I will reveal the rest of the "correct answers" to this
>>quiz. ;-)
>
>Some right off the top,
>
>Planck constant theory
>SR
>GR
>Schrödinger Equation
>Uncertainty Principle
>Dirac Equation
>Electroweak theory
>Quark theory
>Standard Model for particles
>
I don't think I can put discoveries into order of importance, when I
regard them as essential. My order is roughly chronological. Although I
am responding to Fred's post, I prepared it independently, then put it
here for comparison.
explanation of the photoelectric effect.
sr
gr
qm
Dirac equation
qed
parity violation
intermediate vector bosons
quarks
It seems we agree pretty closely with the first items, but I have put qm
to include Schrödinger , Heisenberg and the uncertainty principle. I
would put qed separate from the Electroweak theory, as it was clearly
discovered first.
I don't agree on Standard model. So long as this is based on
metaphysical fields, I think we will find it is ill founded. The same
for the electroweak theory, instead I have just included the elements of
it which I regard as correct. This marks the point at which, imv,
theoretical physics has started to stagnate (although the causes of
stagnation can be traced back pre-war) This is considerably less than
the 100 yr time frame, but stagnation nonetheless.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)
Peter
> Following from my reply to Fred in the last post (relating to the "100
> years" time frame), I'd like to ask people to please list what they
> believe are the top dozen *theoretical* breakthroughs in physics since
> 1900, and their reasons why.
>
> I will withhold my list for the moment, other than to put General Theory
> of Relativity as #1.
Hello Jay,
I hope that incomplete lists are welcome, too ;-)
I follow Charles and go through historically (knowing that this is not always
the logical order)
1) Planck's proposal that the black body radiation is governed by the two
"world constants" h (a certain combination of spectroscopic coefficients),
which connects frequency and energy, and k_B (another of spectroscopic
coefficients), which connects temperature and energy.
Note that Plancks stresses this novelty only in his 1900 talk at the German
Phys. Soc., not in his subsequent paper 1901. This may be the reason that
Einstein (1905) quoted Planck's (1901) formula not in the original form
nu^3/(exp(h.nu/kT)-1)
but in the form
nu^3/(exp(beta.nu/T)-1)
Nevertheless, he was the first who accepted Planck's approach throughoughly
(more than Planck welcomed) and paved the way for the general acceptance of
quantum theory. For this,
2) Einstein's explanations of the external photoeffect and of Stoke's rule
(1905) as well as of the specific heat (1907)
Bohr (1913) is citing these papers (and a 3rd one of 2006) as "The
comprehensive importance of Planck's theory for the description of the
behaviour of atomic systems has been revealed originally by Einstein [6]."
The 1907 paper contains, moreover, (i), the definition of quantization as
state selection and, (ii), a rehabilitation of Newton's notion of state.
3) Gibbs' Statistical Mechanics (1903, German transl. 1905)
4) Superconductivity
5) Emmy Noether's theorem (1918) in its application to Lagrangian mechanis
6) The spin (most important discovery for magnetism)
7) Heisenberg's 1925 quantum mechanics
Before this, quantum theory was like thermodynamics - now, it became
mechanics, too. Schrödinger's approach was triggered by it (and de Broglie's
theses) as he "felt repelled" by it.
It makes the largest conceptional step after Planck.
8) Application of group theory (Weyl, Wigner and others)
9) Non-equilibrium thermodynamics and statistical mechanics (I don't know
whether there are so distinct steps forward as above)
10) Quasicrystals
Because I expect most lists to contain str and gtr, let me sketch why they
are missing above; though I have reserved 2 places for them ;-)
str:
- Einstein's (1905) approach refers to an asymmetry in cem, which, however,
is absent in Maxwell's equations;
- his understanding of space-time is revolutionary, indeed, but seduces to
diminuish the physical differences between space and time (see Minkowski
1908);
- str mechanics (Einstein 1905, Planck 1906) is a straightforward
generalization of Euler's mechanics
gtr:
- I would first prefer to understand why Whitehead has accepted str, but not
gtr;
- many experimental results can be explained coherently without it;
- there are serious alternatives (well known in this group is Charles'
approach)
Thank you for your initiative!
Peter
Ken S. Tucker
On Sep 6, 11:35 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Jay R. Yablon" <jyab...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in messagenews:6ih0obF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Following from my reply to Fred in the last post (relating to the
> > "100 years" time frame), I'd like to ask people to please list what
> > they believe are the top dozen *theoretical* breakthroughs in
> > physics since 1900, and their reasons why.
>
> > I will withhold my list for the moment, other than to put General
> > Theory of Relativity as #1.
>
> > Next week, I will reveal the rest of the "correct answers" to this
> > quiz. ;-)
>
> Some right off the top,
>
> Planck constant theory
Agreed, I think that's #1, it founded Quantum Theory.
> SR
> GR
I'd put the Theory of Relativity at #2. I see relativity
as a superb application of mathematics to EM-theory.
Next I'd put in SpaceTime #3, specifically Minkowski's
but then later it evolved to a Modern SpaceTime equating
Length to Time (N meters = c*1 second), that I find
exceptionally powerful.
#4) is my/our own "unitivity theory" that I frequently use
to relate the above.
Dr. Francis's, Teleconnection Theory is still pending.
> Schrödinger Equation
> Uncertainty Principle
> Dirac Equation
> Electroweak theory
> Quark theory
> Standard Model for particles
>
> Best,
> Fred Diether
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Oh No
Yeah, you have included some really important one's I have overlooked,
esp Emmy Noether I think.
>
>7) Heisenberg's 1925 quantum mechanics
>
>Before this, quantum theory was like thermodynamics - now, it became
>mechanics, too. Schrödinger's approach was triggered by it (and de Broglie's
>theses) as he "felt repelled" by it.
>
>It makes the largest conceptional step after Planck.
>
>8) Application of group theory (Weyl, Wigner and others)
>
>9) Non-equilibrium thermodynamics and statistical mechanics (I don't know
>whether there are so distinct steps forward as above)
>
>10) Quasicrystals
>
>Because I expect most lists to contain str and gtr, let me sketch why they
>are missing above; though I have reserved 2 places for them ;-)
>
>str:
>- Einstein's (1905) approach refers to an asymmetry in cem, which, however,
>is absent in Maxwell's equations;
I think this was explained quite well by someone here. At the time at
which he was writing, it seems people would have known what he meant. In
any case, I do not see that it adversely affects the content of his
paper.
>- his understanding of space-time is revolutionary, indeed, but seduces to
>diminuish the physical differences between space and time (see Minkowski
>1908);
Ah, well in my view this was a case of two steps forward (sr) and one
back (Minkowski spacetime). I don't think sr should be blamed for that.
>- str mechanics (Einstein 1905, Planck 1906) is a straightforward
>generalization of Euler's mechanics
Indeed, but I do not think that diminishes sr.
>gtr:
>- I would first prefer to understand why Whitehead has accepted str, but not
>gtr;
The only reason why anyone has not accepted gtr is a failure to
understand what it actually says. Understanding that failure is not
interesting.
>- many experimental results can be explained coherently without it;
not really.
>- there are serious alternatives (well known in this group is Charles'
>approach)
>
There are no serious alternatives. Those alternatives which exist are
based on a lack of understanding of fundamental issues and do not give
correct predictions. My own work is not an alternative to gtr, but an
extension to it applicable to quantum phenomena.
Cl.Massé
>>> Following from my reply to Fred in the last post (relating to the
>>>"100 years" time frame), I'd like to ask people to please list what
>>>they believe are the top dozen *theoretical* breakthroughs in physics
>>>since 1900, and their reasons why.
The main breakthrough was of course the death of classical mechanics, in all
its senses. The father of the the subsequent ones is Maxwell in the
previous century:
Special Relativity
De Broglie's conjecture
Copenhagen interpretation
Chaos theory
Gauge theories (Yang-Mills and General Relativity)
Unifications
Crawling Noodles
Superstrings
I can't count up to doze, since that century had only 70 years of physics.
Seen in hindsight:
SR: Comparable to the other revolutions linked to space: Copernican,
Newtonian... It fostered most of the upcoming physics.
DB'sC: Yes, Plank, Einstein, but the real qualitative leap into quantum
mechanics, even before Schrödinger, is the idea that a material particle is
also a wave. The necessity of the quantization of the electromagnetic field
isn't proven.
Ci: (Statistical interpretation + projection postulate) is what made the
difference between wave mechanics (classical) and true quantum mechanics,
since the discretization of the spectrum is merely classical. Before the
Ci, the EPR paradox didn't exist.
Gt: Beyond the simple wave mechanics, the interaction is fully modeled,
which "completes" quantum theory, and paves the way to unification, the
"Grail" of physics. It looks like a revolution too since it expands the
idea of space.
U: Pick one.
Ct: It is a classical theory, but that has far reaching perspectives that
changes our world view. Its thorough study lets appear great features that,
I believe, will be the key to the next revolution. Nonlinearity is
necessary the next step since we have exhausted all the possibilities of
linearity.
CN: theory of Gille de Gęne, Nobel Prize winner. It is only to put one more
French name in the list.
Ss: No, it was a joke.
--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.
Oh No
>DB'sC: Yes, Plank, Einstein, but the real qualitative leap into quantum
>mechanics, even before Schrödinger, is the idea that a material
>particle is also a wave. The necessity of the quantization of the
>electromagnetic field isn't proven.
Actually it is. Quite apart from the success of qed, the thought
experiment of Eppley and Hannah, though usually used to establish the
necessity of the quantisation of gravity (and questionable in that role)
can be applied perfectly legitimately to electromagnetism.
Juan R.
> gtr:
> - I would first prefer to understand why Whitehead has accepted str, but
> not gtr;
> - many experimental results can be explained coherently without it; -
> there are serious alternatives
A popular alternative to GR is FTG, based in fields [#].
It seems a number of recent experiments are better described by FTG than
by GR. They were discussed in the recent PPC-08 conference. See
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/
canonicalsciencetoday/20080516.html
Other more rigorous and general theories are the DPI approaches. Here you
will find several flavors with different goals in literature:
Stuckelberg Horwitz Piron style
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-and-
limitations_20.html
Eugene style
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019
Etc.
A clear advantage of alternative approaches is they are free of the
traditional difficulties of GR. For instance any theory of above can be
quantized and is free of the famous problem of energy.
[#] Feynman gave the start for string theory nongeometrical approach to
gravity.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Peter
> CN: theory of Gille de Gêne, Nobel Prize winner. It is only to put one
> more
yes - de Gennes is a hugenot like my ancients (and has got the same
characteristic nose as my uncle ;-)
thus, include polymers into my point 'quasicrystals'
Peter
Peter
> The main breakthrough was of course the death of classical mechanics, in
> all its senses. The father of the the subsequent ones is Maxwell in the
> previous century:
neglecting cm is neglecting the very foundations of physics
> DB'sC: Yes, Plank, Einstein, but the real qualitative leap into quantum
> mechanics, even before Schrödinger, is the idea that a material particle is
> also a wave. The necessity of the quantization of the electromagnetic
> field isn't proven.
how to obtain Planck's distribution law without it?
> Ci: (Statistical interpretation + projection postulate) is what made the
> difference between wave mechanics (classical) and true quantum mechanics,
> since the discretization of the spectrum is merely classical.
no, it's not - though the maths used by Schrödinger is classical, and he was
the first who realized and criticized this - the way out is to consider
quantization as state selection problem as proposed by Einstein (1907) and to
exploit Whittaker's recursion formulae (see Enders & Suisky 2005)
Best wishes,
Peter
Oh No
>> The main breakthrough was of course the death of classical mechanics, in
>> all its senses. The father of the the subsequent ones is Maxwell in the
>> previous century:
>
>neglecting cm is neglecting the very foundations of physics
I should say the opposite, the foundations are elementary particles
which are necessarily treated by quantum theory and special relativity.
Classical mechanics is merely an approximation.
Peter
> Thus spake Peter <end...@dekasges.de>
> >> The main breakthrough was of course the death of classical mechanics, in
> >> all its senses. The father of the the subsequent ones is Maxwell in the
> >> previous century:
> >
> >neglecting cm is neglecting the very foundations of physics
>
> I should say the opposite, the foundations are elementary particles
> which are necessarily treated by quantum theory and special relativity.
> Classical mechanics is merely an approximation.
This common view neglects the origin of physics and its notions. The notions
(not the words!) are the tools of thinking. Consequently, inaccurate notions
imply inaccurate thinking. The results of such deficiencies are well known
from the tohuwabohu in the development of the notions of 'force'
and 'energy', or in the interpretation of quantum-physical results.
On principle, when compared with other branches, classical mechanics allows
for the sharpest notions, because the phenomena have the least distance to
immediate experience and thus need the least amount of mediating models and
interpretations, see, eg, the introduction of 'momentum' in view of
Sum mass x velocity = const
Best wishes,
Peter
Oh No
The requirement for accurate thought should lead us to distinguish
between the historical origins of physics and its logical foundations.
History has developed concepts which are precise in classical mechanics
but inaccurate when applied to nature. To retain such classical notions
leads only to inconsistency and confusion, hence the interpretation
problems in qm and misunderstandings in relativity.
Cl.Massé
>>mechanics, even before Schrödinger, is the idea that a material
>>particle is also a wave. The necessity of the quantization of the
>>electromagnetic field isn't proven.
"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news:$5XBL4DT...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
> Actually it is. Quite apart from the success of qed, the thought
> experiment of Eppley and Hannah, though usually used to establish the
> necessity of the quantisation of gravity (and questionable in that role)
> can be applied perfectly legitimately to electromagnetism.
You'll make that assertion when the experiment is performed and gives the
expected result. For the time being, I'm certain it rests on hidden or
dogmatic assumptions. There are theoretical arguments that a nonlinear
theory can explain the Compton scattering, and even the formula E = h nu,
without quantization. It is not because a theory have a success that no
other theory can have the same success.
I would credit them with 1 + 5 + 10 + 10 = 26 points in the Bigot Index.
Oh No
>>>DB'sC: Yes, Plank, Einstein, but the real qualitative leap into quantum
>>>mechanics, even before Schrödinger, is the idea that a material
>>>particle is also a wave. The necessity of the quantization of the
>>>electromagnetic field isn't proven.
>
>"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
>news:$5XBL4DT...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
>
>> Actually it is. Quite apart from the success of qed, the thought
>> experiment of Eppley and Hannah, though usually used to establish the
>> necessity of the quantisation of gravity (and questionable in that role)
>> can be applied perfectly legitimately to electromagnetism.
>
>You'll make that assertion when the experiment is performed and gives the
>expected result.
In essence, I am already doing so. We cannot produce a classical e.m.
wave of arbitrarily high frequency and arbitrarily low intensity,
because we observe that it is quantised.
>For the time being, I'm certain it rests on hidden or
>dogmatic assumptions. There are theoretical arguments that a nonlinear
>theory can explain the Compton scattering, and even the formula E = h nu,
>without quantization.
You do not just have to explain Compton scattering, but many other
experiments, and relativistic ones too, and there is also theoretical
proof that we cannot have a non-linear theory, because it makes a
nonsense of probability theory.
gl...@aol.com
> Following from my reply to Fred in the last post (relating to the "100
> years" time frame), I'd like to ask people to please list what they
> believe are the top dozen *theoretical* breakthroughs in physics since
> 1900, and their reasons why.
>
wave system moving through a universally stationary nedium, thus would
pass differently moving systems at
variable relative velocities. I therefore believe that Lorentz's
explanation, as set forth in his widely misunderstood 1904 paper.
"Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving With Any Velocity Less
than That of Light:" was the most important of them all.
2. As proved by "the smoke experiment" of 1953:
The second law of thermodynamics is false.
{Heat attracts particles, thus - as later proved by 'Maternity
wards" where new stars are born in very hot spots in the cosmos - heat
is the "top" of a round-table because:
heat attracts particles which collectively generate a gravitational
field which causes more and more particles to pour in which generates
stars which etc and etc.
3. The Hafale-Keating experiments proved that the effects of motion
permeate the material INSIDE of a closed chamber. Therefore the
resistive pressure of the surrounding material medium permeates any
object moving through it. The reason that this is one of the top 12
*theoretical breakthroughs' is that it is the ONLY experimental result
that contradicted any of the assumptions in my metaphysics, namely,
that the affects of a system's motion through the surrounding
resistively compressible material do NOT penetrate the solid walls of
a moving body.
4. Although not a theoretical breakthrough (because nobody could
explain what it means nor why it happens) Plank's quantum theory is #
4 on my list.
5 - 12. In no order of merit, other such "breakthroughs' were:
Take your own choice.
13. The very opposite of a theoretical breakthrough was Einstein's
THEORY of relativity, because his mathematical "derivation" of the
experimentally valid LTE was totally defective.
Accordingly, rather than advancing our theoretical knowledge of that
which exists, it became the biggest roadblock of them all,.
glird
Cl.Massé
>>expected result.
"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news:YOjOkXGqZ$xIF...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
> In essence, I am already doing so. We cannot produce a classical e.m.
> wave of arbitrarily high frequency and arbitrarily low intensity,
> because we observe that it is quantised.
No, it's because we cannot produce it! We use atoms which are made of
quantized matter. We must have a transition between states of very
different energies (frequencies), so that the intensity is necessarily high.
It's like trying and engraving thin grooves with wide tools, that doesn't
make wide grooves different from the juxtaposition of thin grooves. The
Schrödinger equation and classical electromagnetism are enough to explain
the photoelectric effect.
A thought experiment has a usefulness only when it leads to a contradiction
with common experiment or common wisdom.
>>For the time being, I'm certain it rests on hidden or
>>dogmatic assumptions. There are theoretical arguments that a nonlinear
>>theory can explain the Compton scattering, and even the formula E = h nu,
>>without quantization.
> You do not just have to explain Compton scattering, but many other
> experiments, and relativistic ones too, and there is also theoretical
> proof that we cannot have a non-linear theory, because it makes a
> nonsense of probability theory.
You are speaking about *your* probability theory, as if there were only one.
There can be linear wave equations in a nonlinear theory. And probabilities
can appear elsewhere as in psi* psi, in strange attractors for instance. So
much for hidden assumptions.
Of course, one starts from very general arguments, we prove that such and
such equation must pop up some where. But the crux is the where, along with
the what, the how, the why. In short, the interpretation.
Oh No
>>>You'll make that assertion when the experiment is performed and gives the
>>>expected result.
>
>"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
>news:YOjOkXGqZ$xIF...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
>
>> In essence, I am already doing so. We cannot produce a classical e.m.
>> wave of arbitrarily high frequency and arbitrarily low intensity,
>> because we observe that it is quantised.
>
>No, it's because we cannot produce it!
We observe it is quantised long before the experimental limitations come
into play.
>We use atoms which are made of
>quantized matter. We must have a transition between states of very
>different energies (frequencies), so that the intensity is necessarily high.
Observations of single photons do not indicate a high intensity to me.
>It's like trying and engraving thin grooves with wide tools, that doesn't
>make wide grooves different from the juxtaposition of thin grooves. The
>Schrödinger equation and classical electromagnetism are enough to explain
>the photoelectric effect.
This is quite untrue. You also have to hypothesis quite unrealistic
metaphysical processes for energy storage.
>
>A thought experiment has a usefulness only when it leads to a contradiction
>with common experiment or common wisdom.
I did not say that the Eppley Hannah experiment applied to
electromagnetism was useful. I cited it to show that it shows what we
already know to be the case, and that it shows contradiction to your
somewhat uncommon ideas.
>
>>>For the time being, I'm certain it rests on hidden or
>>>dogmatic assumptions. There are theoretical arguments that a nonlinear
>>>theory can explain the Compton scattering, and even the formula E = h nu,
>>>without quantization.
>
>> You do not just have to explain Compton scattering, but many other
>> experiments, and relativistic ones too, and there is also theoretical
>> proof that we cannot have a non-linear theory, because it makes a
>> nonsense of probability theory.
>
>You are speaking about *your* probability theory, as if there were only one.
probability theory has a mathematical definition. It is not mine and
there is only one.