Is Lee Smolin a crackpot too?

[kayin]

When I read Lee Smolin book Time Reborn, I encountered ideas similar to many here whom people considered crackpots. For example, Smolin wrote:

"To describe how the correlations are established, a hidden-variables theory must embrace one observer’s definition of simultaneity. This means, in turn, that there is a preferred notion of rest. And that, in turn, implies that motion is absolute. Motion is absolutely meaningful, because you can talk absolutely about who is moving with respect to that one observer — call him Aristotle. Aristotle is at rest. Anything he sees as moving is really moving.
End of story.
In other words, Einstein was wrong. Newton was wrong. Galileo was wrong. There is no relativity of motion"

----------------------

I haven't read Y.porat or Androcles saying Newton was wrong. They just agreed that Einstein was wrong. But Smolin belived both Einstein and Newton was wrong. Is Lee Smolin a worse crackpot than all here.. or did the crackpots here influenced finally Smolin?

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/30/13, 8:59 AM, kayin wrote:
> When I read Lee Smolin book Time Reborn, I encountered ideas similar to many here whom people considered crackpots. For example, Smolin wrote:
>

> "To describe how the correlations are established, a hidden-variables theory must embrace one observer�s definition of simultaneity. This means, in turn, that there is a preferred notion of rest. And that, in turn, implies that motion is absolute. Motion is absolutely meaningful, because you can talk absolutely about who is moving with respect to that one observer � call him Aristotle. Aristotle is at rest. Anything he sees as moving is really moving.

> End of story.
> In other words, Einstein was wrong. Newton was wrong. Galileo was wrong. There is no relativity of motion"
>
> ----------------------
>
> I haven't read Y.porat or Androcles saying Newton was wrong. They just agreed that Einstein was wrong. But Smolin belived both Einstein and Newton was wrong. Is Lee Smolin a worse crackpot than all here.. or did the crackpots here influenced finally Smolin?
>

You have to ask yourself, does Lee Smolin, *behave* like the
crackpots on USENET?
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[Gregor Scholten]

kayin wrote:

> When I read Lee Smolin book Time Reborn, I encountered ideas similar
> to many here whom people considered crackpots. For example, Smolin
> wrote:
>
> "To describe how the correlations are established, a hidden-variables

> theory must embrace one observer�s definition of simultaneity. This

> means, in turn, that there is a preferred notion of rest. And that,
> in turn, implies that motion is absolute.

I don't think that those who have been considered as crackpots have been
this just because they doubted the relativity principle. I'm sure there
have been other reasons.

> I haven't read Y.porat or Androcles saying Newton was wrong. They
> just agreed that Einstein was wrong.

this indicates they did not just doubt the relativity principle. Saying
Einstein would be wrong whereas Newton would be right implies that the
reason why one thinks Einsteins would be wrong is not the relativity
principle.

> But Smolin belived both Einstein
> and Newton was wrong. Is Lee Smolin a worse crackpot than all here..

no. The degree of crackpottery is not indicated by the number of
physicists whose theories one doubts. It's rather indicated by the
reason for which one doubts the particular theory.

> or did the crackpots here influenced finally Smolin?

hardly.

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

was Smolin being rhetoricaL; a)
no, b)
maybe not, c)
surely he was joking, d)
he's not a pirate, any more

[Gregor Scholten]

Spac...@hotmail.com asked:

> was Smolin being rhetoricaL; a)
> no, b)
> maybe not, c)
> surely he was joking, d)

c)

[R Kym Horsell]

kayin <kayi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When I read Lee Smolin book Time Reborn, I encountered ideas similar to many here whom people considered crackpots. For example, Smolin wrote:
>

> "To describe how the correlations are established, a hidden-variables theory must embrace one observer?s definition of simultaneity. This means, in turn, that there is a preferred notion of rest. And that, in turn, implies that motion is absolute. Motion is absolutely meaningful, because you can talk absolutely about who is moving with respect to that one observer ? call him Aristotle. Aristotle is at rest. Anything he sees as moving is really moving.

> End of story.
> In other words, Einstein was wrong. Newton was wrong. Galileo was wrong. There is no relativity of motion"
>
> ----------------------
>
> I haven't read Y.porat or Androcles saying Newton was wrong. They just agreed that Einstein was wrong. But Smolin belived both Einstein and Newton was wrong. Is Lee Smolin a worse crackpot than all here.. or did the crackpots here influenced finally Smolin?

Are you reading it right?
*if* you accept hidden-variable quantum mechanics *then* there may be
an argument against relative motion.


--
[On "flawed logic" and creeping denialism:]
>It's what I've called elsewhere "creeping denialism". At first the
>unwanted conclusion is rejected by attacking the original work that
>proposed it. Then maybe the observations from that work. But then, as
>other scientists become involved and support the conclusion using
>independent lines of reasoning, those theories must be attacked, too.
>Then the basic methodology of science (e.g. the idea that observations
>supporting predictions are a "good idea"). And eventually even the basic
>concepts of reasoning (e.g. if more than one method reaches the same
>conclusion then the conclusion must be wrong).
I don't buy your simplistic belief system and your flawed logics.
-- Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr>, 08 Jul 2012

>If a theory A predicts B and we observe B then we have evidence
>the theory is true.
There is a consensus that A => B and B is true does not imply anything on A.
-- Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr>, 08 Jul 2012 12:46:34 GMT

[Yousuf Khan]

On 30/11/2013 9:59 AM, kayin wrote:
> When I read Lee Smolin book Time Reborn, I encountered ideas similar to many here whom people considered crackpots. For example, Smolin wrote:
>

> "To describe how the correlations are established, a hidden-variables theory must embrace one observer�s definition of simultaneity. This means, in turn, that there is a preferred notion of rest. And that, in turn, implies that motion is absolute. Motion is absolutely meaningful, because you can talk absolutely about who is moving with respect to that one observer � call him Aristotle. Aristotle is at rest. Anything he sees as moving is really moving.

> End of story.
> In other words, Einstein was wrong. Newton was wrong. Galileo was wrong. There is no relativity of motion"
>
> ----------------------
>
> I haven't read Y.porat or Androcles saying Newton was wrong. They just agreed that Einstein was wrong. But Smolin belived both Einstein and Newton was wrong. Is Lee Smolin a worse crackpot than all here.. or did the crackpots here influenced finally Smolin?

There's a vast difference between just saying somebody is wrong because
of a "feeling they have", vs. stating why that is the case. In this
case, Lee Smolin is giving the reason as "Hidden Variables Theory",
which a number of other physicists have thought of before too. For
example, the De Broglie-Born Theory of quantum mechanics is an example
of hidden variables theory.

Yousuf Khan

[Gregor Scholten]

R Kym Horsell wrote:

>> When I read Lee Smolin book Time Reborn, I encountered ideas
>> similar to many here whom people considered crackpots. For example,
>> Smolin wrote:
>>
>> "To describe how the correlations are established, a
>> hidden-variables theory must embrace one observer?s definition of
>> simultaneity. This means, in turn, that there is a preferred notion
>> of rest. And that, in turn, implies that motion is absolute. Motion
>> is absolutely meaningful, because you can talk absolutely about who
>> is moving with respect to that one observer ? call him Aristotle.
>> Aristotle is at rest. Anything he sees as moving is really moving.
>> End of story. In other words, Einstein was wrong. Newton was wrong.
>> Galileo was wrong. There is no relativity of motion"
>>
>> ----------------------
>>
>> I haven't read Y.porat or Androcles saying Newton was wrong. They
>> just agreed that Einstein was wrong. But Smolin belived both
>> Einstein and Newton was wrong. Is Lee Smolin a worse crackpot than
>> all here.. or did the crackpots here influenced finally Smolin?
>
>
> Are you reading it right? *if* you accept hidden-variable quantum
> mechanics

However, Smolin does not mean ordinary hidde-variables interpretation of
quantum mechanics when he says hidden-variables theory. In Loop Quantum
Gravity to which he is referring, there are no hidden variables in the
sense of traditional hidden variables interpretation, i.e. in the sense
of variables "behind" the quantum mechanical states that would imply
that quantum mechanical states on their own would be an incomplete
description of the particular quantum system. In LQG, quantum states are
considered as complete description, in contrary to tradional
hidden-variables interpretation.

When saying hidden variables, Smolin means something different, namely
the existence of a preferred frame of reference, which is hidden in that
way that, at least in the classical limit of LQG, we cannot observe it,
but observe a world where the relativity principlies seems to apply
instead. In some way, this is comparable to Lorentzian Ether Theory,
where a preferred frame of reference is given by the ether, but is
unobservable for us.

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

implication does not exply causation ;that is trivium