Physics: By Beauty it is beautiful.
sadovnik socratus
#
After reading book �Albert Einstein� by Leopold Infeld.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Infeld
========================.
Page 4.
� Many believe that relative theory tells us that ours
is a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland universe; . . . .�
� How, then, did the prejudice about the mysterious relative
Alice-in-Wonderland universe arise?�
#
I will try to give my brief remark about this situation.
1.
In the 19th century aether /ether was the term used to
describe a medium for the propagation of quantum of light
(electromagnetic waves ).
This aether had strange chracteristic.
On one hand it must be very thin, because the planets
move through it without resistence.
On the other hand it must be very hard, because quantum
of light is a transverse wave. And a transverse wave can
move only in a hard space. It was created many theories
to explain this paradox but without success.
2.
In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment
showed that the speed of quantum of light is constant in all
directions regardless of the motion of the source.
This experiment was interpreted as �ether doesn�t exist�.
3.
In 1905, Albert Einstein resolved this paradox by revising the
Galilean model of space and time to account for the constancy
of the speed of light. Einstein formulated his ideas in his
special theory of relativity, which advanced humankind's
understanding of space and time.
/ The special theory of relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
4.
In 1908 Herman Minkowski explained Einstein�s
idea using time as forth dimension and said:
� Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will preserve
an independent reality.�
=======================.
#
So, � How, then, did the prejudice about the mysterious
relative Alice-in-Wonderland universe arise?�
My opinion.
On the page 5 Infeld wrote:
� Science is a rational structure; the greatest pleasure
in studying is that of understanding. Without it
knowledge means little.�
Very well. But if the � Science is a rational structure�
then where is the Minkowski (-4D ) in nature, where
is the �only a kind of union of the two� ?
Nobody knows where it is.
So, what is about a rational structure?
So, what is about a real structure, real nature?
I don�t mean to criticize.
I only cannot understand why the trick of changing
concept of ether on the concept of space-time was passed
without doubt, with glory and proud.
=====.
P.S.
Maybe the reason of (-4D) long live is it
mathematical beauty ?
Page 45.
�Minkowski mathematical genius put Einstein�s ideas
into a new geometrical form that fully revealed their
beauty and simplicity.�
But is it correct to say, that these two parameters real enough
to explain and understand the real nature?
About 2500 years ago, according to Plato, Socrates said:
� I do not go so far as to insist upon the precise details;
only upon the fact that it is by Beauty that beautiful
things are beautiful.�
This is exactly that physicists are doing.
And as a result, going in such beautiful mathematical
way we have many paradoxes in physics.
Without the precise physical details, like: volume (V ),
temperature (T ) and density ( P) the Minkowski
beautiful and simple (-4D) is a pure mathematical game,
it is an abstraction.
=======.
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==============================.
Nick Keighley
> Physics: By Beauty it is beautiful.
> After reading book Albert Einstein by Leopold Infeld.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Infeld
> ========================.
> Page 4.
> Many believe that relative theory tells us that ours
> is a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland universe; . . . .
meaning what exactly? That the universe appears to be different from
naive intuition would expect? Once you move away from the everyday
world of metres, kilogram and seconds then it shouldn't really be
surprising that things are different.
[insert joke about US measurement system here]
> How, then, did the prejudice about the mysterious relative
> Alice-in-Wonderland universe arise?
what prejudice?
> #
> I will try to give my brief remark about this situation.
> 1.
> In the 19th century aether /ether was the term used to
> describe a medium for the propagation of quantum of light
> (electromagnetic waves ).
well no not really. It would be a little anachronistic to talk about
the aether supporting quanta. They didn't have quanta in the 19th
century.
<snip>
> 4.
> In 1908 Herman Minkowski explained Einstein s
> idea using time as forth dimension and said:
> Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
> are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
> and only a kind of union of the two will preserve
> an independent reality.
Later in your post you keep mentioning -4D. I'm guessing this is your
abbreviation for Minkowski's space-time?
> =======================.
> #
> So, How, then, did the prejudice about the mysterious
> relative Alice-in-Wonderland universe arise?
> My opinion.
> On the page 5 Infeld wrote:
> Science is a rational structure; the greatest pleasure
> in studying is that of understanding. Without it
> knowledge means little.
some quantum mechanics seem to have given up the idea of
understanding.
> Very well. But if the Science is a rational structure
> then where is the Minkowski (-4D ) in nature,
everywhere? I don't really understand the question. General Relativity
explains lots of things from bending light to the orbit of Mercury.
GPS makes allowance for GR. Seems pretty evident in nature to me.
> where is the only a kind of union of the two ?
everywhere
> Nobody knows where it is.
> So, what is about a rational structure?
> So, what is about a real structure, real nature?
what's the difference between "rational" and "real" (yeah I know, one
can be expressed as the ratio of two integers).
Is this just another version of "but relativity doesn't make sense to
me!"
> I don t mean to criticize.
> I only cannot understand why the trick of changing
> concept of ether on the concept of space-time was passed
> without doubt, with glory and proud.
because it passes the scientists' litmus test. It works.
> =====.
> P.S.
> Maybe the reason of (-4D) long live is it
> mathematical beauty ?
plus it accuratly describes a large chunk of the universe.
Ultimately QM and GR disagree so one day we'll have a better theory.
Don't bet that time and space will be unglued again though.
> Page 45.
> Minkowski mathematical genius put Einstein s ideas
> into a new geometrical form that fully revealed their
> beauty and simplicity.
>
> But is it correct to say, that these two parameters real enough
> to explain and understand the real nature?
what?
> About 2500 years ago, according to Plato, Socrates said:
> I do not go so far as to insist upon the precise details;
> only upon the fact that it is by Beauty that beautiful
> things are beautiful.
at bottom, many quarks are beautifully flavoured.
> This is exactly that physicists are doing.
> And as a result, going in such beautiful mathematical
> way we have many paradoxes in physics.
name one
> Without the precise physical details, like: volume (V ),
> temperature (T ) and density ( P) the Minkowski
> beautiful and simple (-4D) is a pure mathematical game,
> it is an abstraction.
even old TVs had to allow for GR.
Paul Ciszek
In article <2eb2d19c-e365-4aa8...@z31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
Details, please. I had not heard about this.
--
Please reply to: | "Evolution is a theory that accounts
pciszek at panix dot com | for variety, not superiority."
Autoreply has been disabled | -- Joan Pontius
Darwin123
> > In the 19th century aether /ether was the term used to
> > describe a medium for the propagation of quantum of light
> > (electromagnetic waves ).
>
> well no not really. It would be a little anachronistic to talk about
> the aether supporting quanta. They didn't have quanta in the 19th
> century.
corpuscles. Newtonian corpuscles in some ways resemble quanta. So some
nonscientists mistake the two.
Newton corpuscles are not photons. You can't fit diffraction
phenomena with corpuscles. Furthermore, corpuscles travel at different
speeds. So you can't explain the constancy in the speed of light, even
the type of constancy known before the Michaelson experiment, with
corpuscles. The most obvious thing is that you can't explain the
polarization properties of light with corpuscles. Photons have
properties that explain these properties.
However, many people don't understand that. The concept of photon
is first introduced without reference to polarization, diffraction, or
variable speeds.
The OP thought quanta and corpuscles are the same. I hope he is
reading this so he understands better.
Darwin123
> >even old TVs had to allow for GR.
That is a little bit of a reach.
sadovnik socratus
Page 4.
And out of this fantastic, relative world that Einstein
created there suddenly appeared the atomic bomb.
Page 36.
Its title is ‘Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on Its Energy?’
This short paper states: the use of atomic energy is,
in principle, possible. Forty years later, the work
of many scientists showed that the use of atomic
energy is practicable as was demonstrated . . . . .
. . . in the New Mexican desert and the devastation
at Hiroshima.
=============.
So, on the one hand SRT is true theory.
But on the other hand its basis ( -4D) is abstract.
To tell half of truth is worse than pure lie.
When in SRT practical truth mixed with an abstract meaning
of (-4D) our logical thought sink as ‘ unsinkable Titanic’.
SRT, as a good mirror, shows us the real ugly understanding
the concept that we call ‘ Scientific Knowledge’.
But . . .but . . .
‘ One thing I have learned in a long life:
that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive
and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have.’
/ Einstein /
=============.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by sadovnik socratus
<is.so...@gmail.com>:
>Book �Albert Einstein� by Leopold Infeld.
>Page 4.
>And out of this fantastic, relative world that Einstein
> created there suddenly appeared the atomic bomb.
>Page 36.
>Its title is �Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on Its Energy?�
>This short paper states: the use of atomic energy is,
>in principle, possible. Forty years later, the work
> of many scientists showed that the use of atomic
> energy is practicable as was demonstrated . . . . .
>. . . in the New Mexican desert and the devastation
> at Hiroshima.
>=============.
>So, on the one hand SRT is true theory.
Nothing in science is considered as "truth"; SR is a tested
theory which has not been falsified and which made (and
makes) accurate predictions.
>But on the other hand its basis ( -4D) is abstract.
Assuming you're referring to spacetime, this is not
"abstract".
>To tell half of truth is worse than pure lie.
You haven't demonstrated that spacetime is an incorrect view
of reality.
>When in SRT practical truth mixed with an abstract meaning
> of (-4D) our logical thought sink as � unsinkable Titanic�.
>SRT, as a good mirror, shows us the real ugly understanding
> the concept that we call � Scientific Knowledge�.
>But . . .but . . .
>� One thing I have learned in a long life:
>that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive
>and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have.�
> / Einstein /
Yes, he recognized that we don't know, and probably will
never know, everything. But that's irrelevant, when we *do*
know that which has been tested (such as SR) and not shown
to be incorrect, and the final phrase in your quote (which
you apparently didn't understand) acknowledges this.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
[Crickets...]
Another drive-by moron...