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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376422

Re: Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime

Show all headers | View raw

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 3:13:00 PM UTC-8, 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..." 
> 
> 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.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.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."
> 
> 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://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.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." 
> 
> Pentcho Valev

Which reminds me:
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm

Executive summary:

1. The links Pentcho posts are mostly legitimate,

2. He usually doesn't read them in any depth, so don't be surprised if the linked articles do not match his commentaries to them,

3. His motivation is that he thinks Einstein's relativity will go away because of new developments in physics. Since neither Newton nor Maxwell went away following the quantum tectonic change, his quest is almost certainly doomed.

4. Whether Pentcho recycles his links is a good exercise for the enterprising reader.

--
Jan

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

Thread

Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 15:12 -0800
  Re: Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 16:08 -0800
    Re: Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 19:06 -0800
  Re: Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-18 09:13 +0100
    Re: Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-21 18:39 +0100
      Re: Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-21 10:04 -0800
        Re: Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 10:42 -0800
          Re: Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-21 22:10 +0100
  Re: Schizophrenia: Hailing Gravitational Waves, Rejecting Spacetime Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 11:51 -0800

csiph-web