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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #359565 > unrolled thread

WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS?

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

Contents

  WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-03 14:21 -0700
    Re: WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 15:20 -0700
      Re: WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-03 15:29 -0700
        Re: WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 15:36 -0700
    Re: WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-04 06:57 -0700
    Re: WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS? Bohuš Matuška <bohu@paranetnet.net> - 2015-08-04 15:44 +0000
      Re: WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS? Bohuš Matuška <bohu@paranetnet.net> - 2015-08-04 16:54 +0000

#359565 — WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS?

Lee Smolin asks a question and suggests an answer:

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm 
 Lee Smolin: "Where are the Einsteinians? (...) Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it."

Nowadays all Einsteinians (except for the silliest ones) know that special relativity is wrong (Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false) and accordingly are leaving (or have left) the sinking ship:

http://www.reset-italia.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/andiam-andiam.jpg

Those who explain their motives usually reject Einstein's spacetime - the idiotic offspring of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

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..." 

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."

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." 

http://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html 
 "Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, a theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute, said, "I have the distressing experience of physicists telling me that time is not real. ... It confuses me, because time seems to be real. Things happen. When I clap my hands, it happened. ... I would prefer to say that general relativity is not the final theory than to say that time does not exist." Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics." 

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." 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html 
 "...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." 

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." 

http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726 
 "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..." 

http://www.homevalley.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135:its-likely-that-times-are-changing 
 "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. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage. (...) Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, has thought deeply about choosing clocks, leading him to some troubling realizations. (...) "It seems to me like it's a time in the development of physics," says Albrecht, "where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very differently."

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#359571

You are still crossposting this to sci.math. Why?

--
Jan

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

#359573

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 11:21:02 PM UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> You are still crossposting this to sci.math. Why?
> 
> --
> Jan

probably to annoy you?

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

#359576

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 3:29:45 PM UTC-7, underante wrote:
> On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 11:21:02 PM UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> > You are still crossposting this to sci.math. Why?
> > 
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> probably to annoy you?

If that's the case, what does it say about Pentcho? How does this
help his "case"?

--
Jan

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

#359612

High priest/profiteer John Baez, once playing the role of Tomas de Torquemada in Einsteiniana, quitted working on quantum gravity in 2008 because he didn't want to live in Einstein's schizophrenic world anymore:

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. (...)  I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less.  So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vJDaXX5tAwk/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAVBk/ix6qQT75H7o/photo.jpg

Pentcho Valev

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

#359623

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> 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..."

I disagree entirely. *Spacetime* describe almost perfectly the phenomenon 
and the mechanics of gravitation, by removing many unnecessary and wrong 
things introduced by other theories.

However, the *spacetime* may not be the whole story, since it does not 
explain its "plasticity", or what exactly attributed property enable 
spacetime to accomplish all that.

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

#359628

Bohuš Matuška wrote:

> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 
>> 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..."
> 
> I disagree entirely. *Spacetime* describe almost perfectly the
> phenomenon and the mechanics of gravitation, by removing many
> unnecessary and wrong things introduced by other theories.
> 
> However, the *spacetime* may not be the whole story, since it does not
> explain its "plasticity", or what exactly attributed property enable
> spacetime to accomplish all that.

Coincidently, if such a property IS associated with spacetime, then an 
anti-gravity device, shielding and gravity generators MUST be possible to 
develop.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web