Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #426321

Re: Who Killed Physics?

Show key headers only | View raw

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 
> "Look, my lad, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhVLHu8HRk
> 
> Einsteinians know a dead science when they see one, and they've been looking at one since January 2001:
> 
> Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishin
> 
> 
> 
> New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."  http://www.newscien
> 
> "[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. [...] Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."
> 
> "...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."
> 
> Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."  https://www
> 
> Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "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."
> 
> 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..."
> 
> "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 rela
> 
> "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."
> 
> "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..."
> 
> 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."
> 
> Frank Close: "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 fo
> 
> Sabine Hossenfelder: "Many of my colleagues believe this forest of theories will eventually be chopped down by data. But in the foundations of physics it has become extremely rare for any model to be ruled out. The accepted practice is instead to adjust the model so that it continues to agree with the lack of empirical support."
>  http://www.nature.com.proxy.readcube.com/nphys/journal/v13/n4/full/nphys4079.html
> 
> Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee): "The criticism you raise that there are lots of speculative models that have no known relevance for the description of nature has very little to do with string theory but is a general disease of the research area. Lots of theorists produce lots of models that have no chance of ever being tested or ruled out because that's how they earn a living. The smaller the probability of the model being ruled out in their lifetime, the better. It's basic economics. Survival of the
> 
> 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."  htt
> 
> 
>  http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/22/schools.g2
> 
> "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."
> 
> Pentcho Valev



albert einstein killed physics when he built the atomic bomb. he went
from physics to engineering...

his partner in crime Leo Zilard dropped out of physics and went into
biology.


a lot of people drop out of physics because it doesn't lead to...
anywhere.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Who Killed Physics? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 07:19 -0700
  Re: Who Killed Physics? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 10:04 -0700
  Re: Who Killed Physics? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-27 10:25 -0700
  Re: Who Killed Physics? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 12:06 -0700
  Re: Who Killed Physics? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 12:00 -0700
    Re: Who Killed Physics? Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-08-02 20:44 +0000
    Re: Who Killed Physics? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-02 14:09 -0700
      Re: Who Killed Physics? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 15:58 -0700
        Re: Who Killed Physics? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-02 23:37 -0700
          Re: Who Killed Physics? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 15:09 -0700
            Re: Who Killed Physics? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-04 00:00 -0700
              Re: Who Killed Physics? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 11:44 -0700
                Re: Who Killed Physics? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-04 13:26 -0700
                Re: Who Killed Physics? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 13:42 -0700
                Re: Who Killed Physics? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-04 14:22 -0700
                Re: Who Killed Physics? Otten Schneijders <jii@pouartj.op> - 2017-08-04 21:29 +0000
                Re: Who Killed Physics? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 14:40 -0700
                Re: Who Killed Physics? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-04 14:45 -0700
                Re: Who Killed Physics? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 15:17 -0700
                Re: Who Killed Physics? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-05 09:09 -0700
                Re: Who Killed Physics? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-05 09:17 -0700
                Re: Who Killed Physics? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-05 12:10 -0700
                Re: Who Killed Physics? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 12:44 -0700

csiph-web