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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #387394 > unrolled thread

Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-07 09:33 -0700
    Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 12:06 -0700
      Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 22:46 -0700
      Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification Alejandro Bellucci <alejb@yahoo.info> - 2016-07-08 18:51 +0000
        Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 12:28 -0700
          Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification Jack Chardy <jackc@outlool.org> - 2016-07-08 20:11 +0000
            Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 15:20 -0500
              Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification Jack Chardy <jackc@outlool.org> - 2016-07-08 20:45 +0000
            Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 13:21 -0700
              Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification Jack Chardy <jackc@outlool.org> - 2016-07-08 20:28 +0000
        Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 17:31 -0700
    Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-07 23:40 -0700
    Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-08 02:05 -0700
      Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-09 05:41 -0700
        Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 04:16 -0700

#387394 — Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/07/07/grand-unification-may-be-a-dead-end-for-physics/ 
 Ethan Siegel: "Grand Unification May Be A Dead-End For Physics"

Einsteinians' problem is different: If the quest for unification continues, Einstein's spacetime, the idiotic consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, will be getting more and more exposed and vulnerable:

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-185331159.html 
 "Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. [...] Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense, Minkowski saw, only if space and time were intertwined."

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563 
 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.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." 

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..." 

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." 

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://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060114 
 George Ellis (29:49): "We actually don't have local Lorentz invariance; we have broken local Lorentz invariance." 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900 
 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.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." 

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?"

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#387408

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 9:33:56 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/07/07/grand-unification-may-be-a-dead-end-for-physics/ 
>  Ethan Siegel: "Grand Unification May Be A Dead-End For Physics"
> 
> Einsteinians' problem is different: If the quest for unification continues, Einstein's spacetime, the idiotic consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, will be getting more and more exposed and vulnerable:

Except this is how all physics theories have ever evolved. Again, you are
setting up a false problem: you take a general aspect of physics and how it
develops in general, and shoehorn it into a ludicrous box labelled "and this
is the problem of relativity".

I noticed you are back spamming sci.math after I pointed out you neglected
that aspect of your obnoxious benhaviour. They are all marked as "spam"
there (not by me, BTW).

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387423

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 12:06:41 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 9:33:56 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/07/07/grand-unification-may-be-a-dead-end-for-physics/ 
> >  Ethan Siegel: "Grand Unification May Be A Dead-End For Physics"
> > 
> > Einsteinians' problem is different: If the quest for unification continues, Einstein's spacetime, the idiotic consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, will be getting more and more exposed and vulnerable:
> 
> Except this is how all physics theories have ever evolved. Again, you are
> setting up a false problem: you take a general aspect of physics and how it
> develops in general, and shoehorn it into a ludicrous box labelled "and this
> is the problem of relativity".
> 
> I noticed you are back spamming sci.math after I pointed out you neglected
> that aspect of your obnoxious benhaviour. They are all marked as "spam"
> there (not by me, BTW).
> 
> --
> Jan

There _is_ a grand unification, it's the very 
existence and being of the universe itself as 
a casaully correlated thing.

Then, it's as well so that the most utterly simple 
philosophical, logical, and mathematical precepts 
find themselves also being very concretely a science 
and a and the science of physics.

Such principles as symmetry and variety in diversity 
lend themselves quite completely to our stochastic 
models which are so great then directly to these 
foundations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387463

JanPB wrote:

> On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 9:33:56 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/07/07/grand-
unification-may-be-a-dead-end-for-physics/
>>  Ethan Siegel: "Grand Unification May Be A Dead-End For Physics"
>> 
>> Einsteinians' problem is different: If the quest for unification
>> continues, Einstein's spacetime, the idiotic consequence of Einstein's
>> 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, will be getting more and
>> more exposed and vulnerable:
> 
> Except this is how all physics theories have ever evolved. Again, you
> are setting up a false problem: you take a general aspect of physics and
> how it develops in general, and shoehorn it into a ludicrous box
> labelled "and this is the problem of relativity".
> 
> I noticed you are back spamming sci.math after I pointed out you
> neglected that aspect of your obnoxious benhaviour. They are all marked
> as "spam" there (not by me, BTW).

It rather looks like indistinguishable that you don't understand what he 
says. There are no indications in Nature that a "Unification" is required 
or needed. The aristocracy just pushed their obsession and now is pretty 
hard to back out from it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387465

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 11:51:45 AM UTC-7, Alejandro Bellucci wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 9:33:56 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/07/07/grand-
> unification-may-be-a-dead-end-for-physics/
> >>  Ethan Siegel: "Grand Unification May Be A Dead-End For Physics"
> >> 
> >> Einsteinians' problem is different: If the quest for unification
> >> continues, Einstein's spacetime, the idiotic consequence of Einstein's
> >> 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, will be getting more and
> >> more exposed and vulnerable:
> > 
> > Except this is how all physics theories have ever evolved. Again, you
> > are setting up a false problem: you take a general aspect of physics and
> > how it develops in general, and shoehorn it into a ludicrous box
> > labelled "and this is the problem of relativity".
> > 
> > I noticed you are back spamming sci.math after I pointed out you
> > neglected that aspect of your obnoxious benhaviour. They are all marked
> > as "spam" there (not by me, BTW).
> 
> It rather looks like indistinguishable that you don't understand what he 
> says

Oh I understand it all right. He's been posting the same exact stuff
(I repeat: same exact stuff) since the mid-1990s here (I repeat: since
the mid-1990s).

Obviously a mental case. He never pays any attention to answers, he just
keeps repeating the same questions and posting the same fake "problems"
over and over.

I post my followups to his nonsense just for entertainment. It's like
a nice glass of wine after dinner :-)

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387466

JanPB wrote:

> On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 11:51:45 AM UTC-7, Alejandro Bellucci wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>> 
>> > On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 9:33:56 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> >> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/07/07/grand-
>> unification-may-be-a-dead-end-for-physics/
>> >>  Ethan Siegel: "Grand Unification May Be A Dead-End For Physics"
>> >> 
>> >> Einsteinians' problem is different: If the quest for unification
>> >> continues, Einstein's spacetime, the idiotic consequence of
>> >> Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, will be
>> >> getting more and more exposed and vulnerable:
>> > 
>> > Except this is how all physics theories have ever evolved. Again, you
>> > are setting up a false problem: you take a general aspect of physics
>> > and how it develops in general, and shoehorn it into a ludicrous box
>> > labelled "and this is the problem of relativity".
>> > 
>> > I noticed you are back spamming sci.math after I pointed out you
>> > neglected that aspect of your obnoxious benhaviour. They are all
>> > marked as "spam" there (not by me, BTW).
>> 
>> It rather looks like indistinguishable that you don't understand what
>> he says
> 
> Oh I understand it all right. He's been posting the same exact stuff (
> 
> I post my followups to his nonsense just for entertainment. It's like a
> nice glass of wine after dinner :-)

Ohh, you are an alcoholic too, no wonder people don't understand tensors.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387467

On 7/8/2016 3:11 PM, Jack Chardy wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
>> On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 11:51:45 AM UTC-7, Alejandro Bellucci wrote:
>>> JanPB wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 9:33:56 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/07/07/grand-
>>> unification-may-be-a-dead-end-for-physics/
>>>>>  Ethan Siegel: "Grand Unification May Be A Dead-End For Physics"
>>>>>
>>>>> Einsteinians' problem is different: If the quest for unification
>>>>> continues, Einstein's spacetime, the idiotic consequence of
>>>>> Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, will be
>>>>> getting more and more exposed and vulnerable:
>>>>
>>>> Except this is how all physics theories have ever evolved. Again, you
>>>> are setting up a false problem: you take a general aspect of physics
>>>> and how it develops in general, and shoehorn it into a ludicrous box
>>>> labelled "and this is the problem of relativity".
>>>>
>>>> I noticed you are back spamming sci.math after I pointed out you
>>>> neglected that aspect of your obnoxious benhaviour. They are all
>>>> marked as "spam" there (not by me, BTW).
>>>
>>> It rather looks like indistinguishable that you don't understand what
>>> he says
>>
>> Oh I understand it all right. He's been posting the same exact stuff (
>>
>> I post my followups to his nonsense just for entertainment. It's like a
>> nice glass of wine after dinner :-)
>
> Ohh, you are an alcoholic too, no wonder people don't understand tensors.
>

Wow, that was fast. Two nyms in half a day. Both gone in two clicks. Bye.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387472

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 7/8/2016 3:11 PM, Jack Chardy wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 11:51:45 AM UTC-7, Alejandro Bellucci
>>> wrote:
>>>> JanPB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 9:33:56 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/07/07/grand-
>>>> unification-may-be-a-dead-end-for-physics/
>>>>>>  Ethan Siegel: "Grand Unification May Be A Dead-End For Physics"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Einsteinians' problem is different: If the quest for unification
>>>>>> continues, Einstein's spacetime, the idiotic consequence of
>>>>>> Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, will be
>>>>>> getting more and more exposed and vulnerable:
>>>>>
>>>>> Except this is how all physics theories have ever evolved. Again,
>>>>> you are setting up a false problem: you take a general aspect of
>>>>> physics and how it develops in general, and shoehorn it into a
>>>>> ludicrous box labelled "and this is the problem of relativity".
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed you are back spamming sci.math after I pointed out you
>>>>> neglected that aspect of your obnoxious benhaviour. They are all
>>>>> marked as "spam" there (not by me, BTW).
>>>>
>>>> It rather looks like indistinguishable that you don't understand what
>>>> he says
>>>
>>> Oh I understand it all right. He's been posting the same exact stuff (
>>>
>>> I post my followups to his nonsense just for entertainment. It's like
>>> a nice glass of wine after dinner :-)
>>
>> Ohh, you are an alcoholic too, no wonder people don't understand
>> tensors.
>>
>>
> Wow, that was fast. Two nyms in half a day. Both gone in two clicks.
> Bye.
>
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Just keep making your fine toys, tools and tables. Let Relativity to 
people knowing what Physics is all about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387468

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 1:11:06 PM UTC-7, Jack Chardy wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 11:51:45 AM UTC-7, Alejandro Bellucci wrote:
> >> JanPB wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 9:33:56 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >> >> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/07/07/grand-
> >> unification-may-be-a-dead-end-for-physics/
> >> >>  Ethan Siegel: "Grand Unification May Be A Dead-End For Physics"
> >> >> 
> >> >> Einsteinians' problem is different: If the quest for unification
> >> >> continues, Einstein's spacetime, the idiotic consequence of
> >> >> Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, will be
> >> >> getting more and more exposed and vulnerable:
> >> > 
> >> > Except this is how all physics theories have ever evolved. Again, you
> >> > are setting up a false problem: you take a general aspect of physics
> >> > and how it develops in general, and shoehorn it into a ludicrous box
> >> > labelled "and this is the problem of relativity".
> >> > 
> >> > I noticed you are back spamming sci.math after I pointed out you
> >> > neglected that aspect of your obnoxious benhaviour. They are all
> >> > marked as "spam" there (not by me, BTW).
> >> 
> >> It rather looks like indistinguishable that you don't understand what
> >> he says
> > 
> > Oh I understand it all right. He's been posting the same exact stuff (
> > 
> > I post my followups to his nonsense just for entertainment. It's like a
> > nice glass of wine after dinner :-)
> 
> Ohh, you are an alcoholic too, no wonder people don't understand tensors.

Let me guess, you are an American?

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387470

JanPB wrote:

> On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 1:11:06 PM UTC-7, Jack Chardy wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>> 
>> > On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 11:51:45 AM UTC-7, Alejandro Bellucci
>> > wrote:
>> >> JanPB wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 9:33:56 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/07/07/grand-
>> >> unification-may-be-a-dead-end-for-physics/
>> >> >>  Ethan Siegel: "Grand Unification May Be A Dead-End For Physics"
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Einsteinians' problem is different: If the quest for unification
>> >> >> continues, Einstein's spacetime, the idiotic consequence of
>> >> >> Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, will be
>> >> >> getting more and more exposed and vulnerable:
>> >> > 
>> >> > Except this is how all physics theories have ever evolved. Again,
>> >> > you are setting up a false problem: you take a general aspect of
>> >> > physics and how it develops in general, and shoehorn it into a
>> >> > ludicrous box labelled "and this is the problem of relativity".
>> >> > 
>> >> > I noticed you are back spamming sci.math after I pointed out you
>> >> > neglected that aspect of your obnoxious benhaviour. They are all
>> >> > marked as "spam" there (not by me, BTW).
>> >> 
>> >> It rather looks like indistinguishable that you don't understand
>> >> what he says
>> > 
>> > Oh I understand it all right. He's been posting the same exact stuff
>> > (
>> > 
>> > I post my followups to his nonsense just for entertainment. It's like
>> > a nice glass of wine after dinner :-)
>> 
>> Ohh, you are an alcoholic too, no wonder people don't understand
>> tensors.
> 
> Let me guess, you are an American?

Well, bottled wine is essentially colored sulphide. Worse than the 
alcohol. Do a research.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387477

Re "unification not required", yes it 
is, because of the mutual incompatibility.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387424

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/07/07/grand-unification-may-be-a-dead-end-for-physics/
>  Ethan Siegel: "Grand Unification May Be A Dead-End For Physics"
> 
> Einsteinians' problem is different: If the quest for unification continues, Einstein's spacetime, the idiotic consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, will be getting more and more exposed and vulnerable:
> 
> https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-185331159.html
> 
> 
> https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
>  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.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."
> 
> 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..."
> 
> 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 rel
> 
> 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 t
> 
> http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060114
>  George Ellis (29:49): "We actually don't have local Lorentz invariance; we have broken local Lorentz invariance."
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900
>  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.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."
> 
> 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?"
> 
> Pentcho Valev



you cannot have a grand unifications of turtles.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387429

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."

In 2008 physics had already been schizophrenic for a long time and Baez knew that. In Einstein schizophrenic world the instigator of the collective schizophrenia, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, is regarded as "a cosmic conspiracy of the highest order":

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Black-Hole-Cosmic-Quandaries/dp/039335038X 
 Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, pp. 123-124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft, a number of things have to happen. First of all, as the speed of your spacecraft increases, the length of everything - you, your measuring devices, your spacecraft - shortens in the direction of motion, as seen by everyone else. Furthermore, your own time slows down exactly enough so that when you haul out your newly shortened yardstick, you are guaranteed to be duped into measuring the same old constant value for the speed of light. What we have here is a cosmic conspiracy of the highest order." 

https://plus.maths.org/content/einstein-relativity 
 David Tong: "Special relativity is where the famous equation E=mc^2 comes from. The central idea of the theory is that there is a speed limit in our Universe. The laws of physics conspire so that nothing can ever travel faster than the speed of light." 

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1113378923/cosmic-yarns-science-fiction-and-the-cosmic-speed-limit-042715/ 
 Robert Scherrer: "In fact, the laws for adding and subtracting speeds have to conspire to keep the speed of the light the same no matter how fast or in what direction an observer is moving. The only way to make this happen is for space and time to expand or contact as objects move." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc3-29dguFs 
 Brian Greene: "Einstein proposed a truly stunning idea - that space and time could work together, constantly adjusting by exactly the right amount so that no matter how fast you might be moving, when you measure the speed of light it always comes out to be 671000000 miles per hour." 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/special-relativity-nutshell.html 
 Brian Greene: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant and would depend on the observer's state of motion. But it is constant; space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity."

The dilemma in 1905:

http://negrjp.fotoblog.uol.com.br/images/photo20150819051851.jpg

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387485

One of the most pernicious red herrings in today's physics:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/387/a-list-of-inconveniences-between-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity 
 Matt Reece: "There are zero contradictions between quantum mechanics and special relativity; quantum field theory is the framework that unifies them."

Einsteinians teach that the absurd relative time established by special relativity is somehow compatible with the absolute (Newtonian) time used in quantum mechanics, and the problem for quantum gravity is the warping of time by matter as predicted by general relativity (warping, not relativity of time, is the source of incompatibility between quantum mechanics and relativity). This is silly of course, and although the red herring is omnipresent and taught by all Einsteinians, it is often contradicted by them (Einsteinians are practitioners of doublethink):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/11/whos-on-first-relativity-time-and-quantum-theory/ 
 Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."

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?"  x 

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."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257 
 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 establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387560

On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 6:41:18 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> One of the most pernicious red herrings in today's physics:
> 
> http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/387/a-list-of-inconveniences-between-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity 
>  Matt Reece: "There are zero contradictions between quantum mechanics and special relativity; quantum field theory is the framework that unifies them."
> 
> Einsteinians teach that the absurd relative time established by special
> relativity is somehow compatible with the absolute (Newtonian) time used
> in quantum mechanics,

Learn some QED, fool:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

> and the problem for quantum gravity is the warping of time by matter as
> predicted by general relativity (warping, not relativity of time, is the
> source of incompatibility between quantum mechanics and relativity).
> This is silly of course,

The silliness is all due to Pentcho's ignorance which he flatulently
displays every time he posts baloney.  The REAL world agrees with GR,
not Pentcho and his fantasy world.

> [Remainder of Pentcho's pestilent post deleted for sanitary reasons]

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web