Science > Physics > Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Gravityman" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2006 07:25:24 PM |
| Object: |
Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
Are you one of these physicists Smolin is referring to? What do
you say about it.
Lee Smolin has this to say about GR:
"As it happened, general relativity already existed, but - and this
is a strange thing to say - it was widely misunderstood, even by
many of the physicists who specialized in its study.
Unfortunately, general relativity was commonly regarded as
a machine that produces spacetime geometries, which
are then to be treated as Newton treated his absolute
space and time: as fixed and absolute entities within which
things move. The question then to be answered was which
of these absolute spacetimes describes the universe? The
only differences between this and Newton's absolute space
and time is that there is no choice in Newton's theory,
while general relativity offers a selection of possible
spacetimes. This is how the theory is presented in some
textbooks, and there are even some philosophers, who
should know better, who seem to interpret it that way.
Julian Barbour's important contribution was to show
convincingly that this was not at all the right way to understand
the theory. Instead, the theory has to be understood as
describing a dynamically evolving network of relationships.
Julain was of course not the only person to learn to see
general relativity in this way. John Stachel also came
to this understanding, at least partly through his work
as the first head of the project to prepare Einstein's
collected papers for publication. But Julian came to
the study of general relativity equipped with a tool that no
one else had- the general mathematical formulation of a
theory in which space and time are nothing but dynamically
evolving relationships. Julian was then able to show how
Einstein's theory of general relativity could be understood
as an example of just such a theory. This demonstration
laid bare the relational nature of the description of space
and time in general relativity."
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
28 Mar 2006 08:46:37 PM |
|
|
"Gravityman" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143595524.922285.323910@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Are you one of these physicists Smolin is referring to?
Now that is a loaded moronic question if I ever heard one. Why bother
asking since you obviously do not understand it well enough to judge the
response?
What do you say about it.
I say GR. is what the equally esteemed Wheeler says about it:
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/s2_5635.pdf
In particular see section 2.8 - THE BOUNDARY OF THE BOUNDARY PRINCIPLE AND
GEOMETRODYNAMICS. However I doubt you have the math to understand it -
which raises a big concern I have about your type. You are quick to post
stuff from popularizations as if it was fact beyond question yet never seem
to want to learn the detail so you can make up your own mind. I wonder why?
My suspicion it's it is a bit too much actual work for your real purpose
which is to stir up trouble.
Lee Smolin has this to say about GR:
"As it happened, general relativity already existed, but - and this
is a strange thing to say - it was widely misunderstood, even by
many of the physicists who specialized in its study.
Unfortunately, general relativity was commonly regarded as
a machine that produces spacetime geometries, which
are then to be treated as Newton treated his absolute
space and time: as fixed and absolute entities within which
things move. The question then to be answered was which
of these absolute spacetimes describes the universe? The
only differences between this and Newton's absolute space
and time is that there is no choice in Newton's theory,
while general relativity offers a selection of possible
spacetimes.
Wrong - the geometry is determined by the stress energy tensor via the EFE -
G = T. In fact GR. posseses a very remarkable property - the EFE's all by
themselves determine particle motion.
This is how the theory is presented in some
textbooks,
Not in the ones I read.
and there are even some philosophers, who
should know better, who seem to interpret it that way.
Julian Barbour's important contribution was to show
convincingly that this was not at all the right way to understand
the theory. Instead, the theory has to be understood as
describing a dynamically evolving network of relationships.
Julain was of course not the only person to learn to see
general relativity in this way. John Stachel also came
to this understanding, at least partly through his work
as the first head of the project to prepare Einstein's
collected papers for publication. But Julian came to
the study of general relativity equipped with a tool that no
one else had- the general mathematical formulation of a
theory in which space and time are nothing but dynamically
evolving relationships. Julian was then able to show how
Einstein's theory of general relativity could be understood
as an example of just such a theory. This demonstration
laid bare the relational nature of the description of space
and time in general relativity."
If you want to understand GR learn about it from proper texts - such would
be a much better use of your time that posting quotes from popularizations
whose basic purpose and tone seems to be to stir up trouble. That way you
can judge for yourself.
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gravityman" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
28 Mar 2006 09:11:14 PM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Gravityman" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143595524.922285.323910@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Are you one of these physicists Smolin is referring to?
Now that is a loaded moronic question if I ever heard one. Why bother
asking since you obviously do not understand it well enough to judge the
response?
What do you say about it.
I say GR. is what the equally esteemed Wheeler says about it:
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/s2_5635.pdf
In particular see section 2.8 - THE BOUNDARY OF THE BOUNDARY PRINCIPLE AND
GEOMETRODYNAMICS. However I doubt you have the math to understand it -
which raises a big concern I have about your type. You are quick to post
stuff from popularizations as if it was fact beyond question yet never seem
to want to learn the detail so you can make up your own mind. I wonder why?
My suspicion it's it is a bit too much actual work for your real purpose
which is to stir up trouble.
Lee Smolin has this to say about GR:
"As it happened, general relativity already existed, but - and this
is a strange thing to say - it was widely misunderstood, even by
many of the physicists who specialized in its study.
Unfortunately, general relativity was commonly regarded as
a machine that produces spacetime geometries, which
are then to be treated as Newton treated his absolute
space and time: as fixed and absolute entities within which
things move. The question then to be answered was which
of these absolute spacetimes describes the universe? The
only differences between this and Newton's absolute space
and time is that there is no choice in Newton's theory,
while general relativity offers a selection of possible
spacetimes.
Wrong - the geometry is determined by the stress energy tensor via the EFE -
G = T. In fact GR. posseses a very remarkable property - the EFE's all by
themselves determine particle motion.
This is how the theory is presented in some
textbooks,
Not in the ones I read.
and there are even some philosophers, who
should know better, who seem to interpret it that way.
Julian Barbour's important contribution was to show
convincingly that this was not at all the right way to understand
the theory. Instead, the theory has to be understood as
describing a dynamically evolving network of relationships.
Julain was of course not the only person to learn to see
general relativity in this way. John Stachel also came
to this understanding, at least partly through his work
as the first head of the project to prepare Einstein's
collected papers for publication. But Julian came to
the study of general relativity equipped with a tool that no
one else had- the general mathematical formulation of a
theory in which space and time are nothing but dynamically
evolving relationships. Julian was then able to show how
Einstein's theory of general relativity could be understood
as an example of just such a theory. This demonstration
laid bare the relational nature of the description of space
and time in general relativity."
If you want to understand GR learn about it from proper texts - such would
be a much better use of your time that posting quotes from popularizations
whose basic purpose and tone seems to be to stir up trouble. That way you
can judge for yourself.
Bill
I just saw the passage in Lee Smolin "Three Roads to Quantum
Gravity" and just wondering what is people thought about it to
gain more insight. What you want instead is for us to spend 9
years taking up Ph.D. in physics to understand that part in
Smolin book.
Maybe you are the Grandfather of Pentchos zombies.
Next time you go to the diagnostic lab for checkup and
you visit a doctor. Hope the doctor would tell you to spend
10 years in medical school to understand what the blood
result means.
Grav
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
28 Mar 2006 10:40:38 PM |
|
|
"Gravityman" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143601873.855091.77280@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Gravityman" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143595524.922285.323910@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Are you one of these physicists Smolin is referring to?
Now that is a loaded moronic question if I ever heard one. Why bother
asking since you obviously do not understand it well enough to judge the
response?
What do you say about it.
I say GR. is what the equally esteemed Wheeler says about it:
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/s2_5635.pdf
In particular see section 2.8 - THE BOUNDARY OF THE BOUNDARY PRINCIPLE
AND
GEOMETRODYNAMICS. However I doubt you have the math to understand it -
which raises a big concern I have about your type. You are quick to post
stuff from popularizations as if it was fact beyond question yet never
seem
to want to learn the detail so you can make up your own mind. I wonder
why?
My suspicion it's it is a bit too much actual work for your real purpose
which is to stir up trouble.
Lee Smolin has this to say about GR:
"As it happened, general relativity already existed, but - and this
is a strange thing to say - it was widely misunderstood, even by
many of the physicists who specialized in its study.
Unfortunately, general relativity was commonly regarded as
a machine that produces spacetime geometries, which
are then to be treated as Newton treated his absolute
space and time: as fixed and absolute entities within which
things move. The question then to be answered was which
of these absolute spacetimes describes the universe? The
only differences between this and Newton's absolute space
and time is that there is no choice in Newton's theory,
while general relativity offers a selection of possible
spacetimes.
Wrong - the geometry is determined by the stress energy tensor via the
EFE -
G = T. In fact GR. posseses a very remarkable property - the EFE's all
by
themselves determine particle motion.
This is how the theory is presented in some
textbooks,
Not in the ones I read.
and there are even some philosophers, who
should know better, who seem to interpret it that way.
Julian Barbour's important contribution was to show
convincingly that this was not at all the right way to understand
the theory. Instead, the theory has to be understood as
describing a dynamically evolving network of relationships.
Julain was of course not the only person to learn to see
general relativity in this way. John Stachel also came
to this understanding, at least partly through his work
as the first head of the project to prepare Einstein's
collected papers for publication. But Julian came to
the study of general relativity equipped with a tool that no
one else had- the general mathematical formulation of a
theory in which space and time are nothing but dynamically
evolving relationships. Julian was then able to show how
Einstein's theory of general relativity could be understood
as an example of just such a theory. This demonstration
laid bare the relational nature of the description of space
and time in general relativity."
If you want to understand GR learn about it from proper texts - such
would
be a much better use of your time that posting quotes from
popularizations
whose basic purpose and tone seems to be to stir up trouble. That way
you
can judge for yourself.
Bill
I just saw the passage in Lee Smolin "Three Roads to Quantum
Gravity" and just wondering what is people thought about it to
gain more insight.
Then do not post loaded questions like 'Are you one of these physicists
Smolin is referring to?'.
What you want instead is for us to spend 9
years taking up Ph.D. in physics to understand that part in
Smolin book.
No. Simply the basics as taught to 2nd or 3rd year physics/math students.
Jesus I never studied physics at uni and picked it up is a few weeks - and
that was from Landau which is generally considered a difficult text. Much
better books for beginning students are now avaiailabe and some online as
well eg
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll_contents.html.
Even if you have not done math past high school 3 months learning calculus
and 3 months study of the above max is all you need. And if you are not
willing to put that kind of effort in how do you think you will ever
understand relativity? Or is your goal not understanding?
Maybe you are the Grandfather of Pentchos zombies.
Next time you go to the diagnostic lab for checkup and
you visit a doctor. Hope the doctor would tell you to spend
10 years in medical school to understand what the blood
result means.
Except at a very basic level that is exactly what I expect the doctor to do
and advise me accordingly. And I would not ask him loaded questions like
'Are you one of those doctors so and so says misunderstands what they were
taught?'. If I did that I would likely, and correctly, be shown the door
and told not to return.
Bill
Grav
.
|
|
|
| User: "Koobee Wublee" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
29 Mar 2006 12:50:06 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:adoWf.19085$dy4.1235@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Then do not post loaded questions like 'Are you one of these physicists
Smolin is referring to?'.
I still do not get your objection from Gravityman's comments. The
answer is whether you are or you are not.
What you want instead is for us to spend 9
years taking up Ph.D. in physics to understand that part in
Smolin book.
No. Simply the basics as taught to 2nd or 3rd year physics/math students.
Jesus I never studied physics at uni and picked it up is a few weeks - and
It shows from your comments. Try to understand the material. If you
have paid any dilligence to the material you have claimed to have
studied independently, you should have no problems identifying
inconsistencies in GR. In fact, all you need is to possess a brain
that is capable of reasoning. Is this prerequisite too much to ask?
that was from Landau which is generally considered a difficult text. Much
better books for beginning students are now avaiailabe and some online as
well eg
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll_contents.html.
They are all the same. If all you can show is to recite the passages
from one of these chapters, I suggest priesthood as a career path.
Even if you have not done math past high school 3 months learning calculus
and 3 months study of the above max is all you need. And if you are not
willing to put that kind of effort in how do you think you will ever
understand relativity? Or is your goal not understanding?
Have you understood any math beyond 1st year calculus? You have not
showed you have in these ubiquitous years of posting reciting passages
from one chapters to another. I would not be surprised if you say
'amen' at the end.
Next time you go to the diagnostic lab for checkup and
you visit a doctor. Hope the doctor would tell you to spend
10 years in medical school to understand what the blood
result means.
Except at a very basic level that is exactly what I expect the doctor to do
and advise me accordingly. And I would not ask him loaded questions like
'Are you one of those doctors so and so says misunderstands what they were
taught?'. If I did that I would likely, and correctly, be shown the door
and told not to return.
Medicine is not an exact science if you have not figured that one out
yet. It is very different from physics where it requires the most
rigid discipline in application of scientific method and the most
important of all, the mathematical consistency.
Perhaps, you are another Conrad or Hammond in a different perspective.
Keep preaching.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
29 Mar 2006 01:30:08 AM |
|
|
"Koobee Wublee"
aka Australopithecus Afarensis
aka Scholarly Fungi
aka Time Traveler
aka Lordly Amoeba
aka Ibn Battuta
aka Marco Polo
<koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1143615006.097332.320900@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:adoWf.19085$dy4.1235@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Then do not post loaded questions like 'Are you one of these physicists
Smolin is referring to?'.
I still do not get your objection from Gravityman's comments. The
answer is whether you are or you are not.
What you want instead is for us to spend 9
years taking up Ph.D. in physics to understand that part in
Smolin book.
No. Simply the basics as taught to 2nd or 3rd year physics/math students.
Jesus I never studied physics at uni and picked it up is a few weeks - and
It shows from your comments. Try to understand the material.
Understand it like this?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LosingIt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AerospaceRelativity.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WhatWrong.html
If you
have paid any dilligence to the material you have claimed to have
studied independently, you should have no problems identifying
inconsistencies in GR. In fact, all you need is to possess a brain
that is capable of reasoning. Is this prerequisite too much to ask?
that was from Landau which is generally considered a difficult text. Much
better books for beginning students are now avaiailabe and some online as
well eg
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll_contents.html.
They are all the same. If all you can show is to recite the passages
from one of these chapters, I suggest priesthood as a career path.
Even if you have not done math past high school 3 months learning calculus
and 3 months study of the above max is all you need. And if you are not
willing to put that kind of effort in how do you think you will ever
understand relativity? Or is your goal not understanding?
Have you understood any math beyond 1st year calculus?
You haven't, that's for sure:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NewLagrangian.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NewPotential.html
but then again, you are a special kind of disgust, aren't you?
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=V1r09.661180$352.138570@sccrnsc02
| "Scholarly Fungi" <scholarlyfungi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:bdq09.28353$Fq6.2900040@news2.west.cox.net...
| > It is also unfortunate that most of the folks blindly embracing this
| > holohaux come from the white supremacists. I don't see what this would gain
| > for them other than trying to antagonize the Jews. However, this is
| > history. When I was in my early high school years, I independently came up
| > with what Butz was saying without knowing his existence. Hey, I am very
| > proud of my humble analytical skills.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
29 Mar 2006 04:05:06 AM |
|
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143615006.097332.320900@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:adoWf.19085$dy4.1235@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Then do not post loaded questions like 'Are you one of these physicists
Smolin is referring to?'.
I still do not get your objection from Gravityman's comments. The
answer is whether you are or you are not.
It is an irrelevant loaded question. No one actually interested in physics
is going to answer yes because if they knew they misunderstood it they would
have corrected that misunderstanding.
What you want instead is for us to spend 9
years taking up Ph.D. in physics to understand that part in
Smolin book.
No. Simply the basics as taught to 2nd or 3rd year physics/math
students.
Jesus I never studied physics at uni and picked it up is a few weeks -
and
It shows from your comments. Try to understand the material. If you
have paid any dilligence to the material you have claimed to have
studied independently, you should have no problems identifying
inconsistencies in GR.
You mean inconsistencies no one else except morons like youseself have
found?
In fact, all you need is to possess a brain
Which of course leaves you out.
that is capable of reasoning. Is this prerequisite too much to ask?
Of course not - which of course leaves one with the question why after Dirk
has time and time again provided documentary proof you have none for all to
see you keep posting.
that was from Landau which is generally considered a difficult text.
Much
better books for beginning students are now avaiailabe and some online as
well eg
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll_contents.html.
They are all the same. If all you can show is to recite the passages
from one of these chapters, I suggest priesthood as a career path.
Even if you have not done math past high school 3 months learning
calculus
and 3 months study of the above max is all you need. And if you are not
willing to put that kind of effort in how do you think you will ever
understand relativity? Or is your goal not understanding?
Have you understood any math beyond 1st year calculus?
How would you know if I did or not - the posts kept by Dirk demonstrate the
mathematical knowledge of a pre schooler.
Bill
You have not
showed you have in these ubiquitous years of posting reciting passages
from one chapters to another. I would not be surprised if you say
'amen' at the end.
Next time you go to the diagnostic lab for checkup and
you visit a doctor. Hope the doctor would tell you to spend
10 years in medical school to understand what the blood
result means.
Except at a very basic level that is exactly what I expect the doctor to
do
and advise me accordingly. And I would not ask him loaded questions like
'Are you one of those doctors so and so says misunderstands what they
were
taught?'. If I did that I would likely, and correctly, be shown the door
and told not to return.
Medicine is not an exact science if you have not figured that one out
yet. It is very different from physics where it requires the most
rigid discipline in application of scientific method and the most
important of all, the mathematical consistency.
Perhaps, you are another Conrad or Hammond in a different perspective.
Keep preaching.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andreas Most" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
29 Mar 2006 05:21:26 AM |
|
|
Koobee Wublee wrote:
It shows from your comments. Try to understand the material. If you
have paid any dilligence to the material you have claimed to have
studied independently, you should have no problems identifying
inconsistencies in GR.
Care to enlighten us and point out any inconsistency?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hayek" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
29 Mar 2006 12:02:02 PM |
|
|
Andreas Most wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
It shows from your comments. Try to understand
the material. If you have paid any dilligence to
the material you have claimed to have studied
independently, you should have no problems
identifying inconsistencies in GR.
Care to enlighten us and point out any
inconsistency?
Apply it to QM?
Uwe Hayek.
--
Die wirtschaftliche Freiheit hat keine Sicherheit ohne
Politische Freiheit, und die politische findet ihre
Sicherheit nur in die wirtschaftlichen Freiheit." --
Eugen Richter
This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the
ability to learn from the experience of others, are
also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to
do so. -- Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andreas Most" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
29 Mar 2006 06:11:32 PM |
|
|
Hayek wrote:
Andreas Most wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
It shows from your comments. Try to understand
the material. If you have paid any dilligence to
the material you have claimed to have studied
independently, you should have no problems
identifying inconsistencies in GR.
Care to enlighten us and point out any
inconsistency?
Apply it to QM?
Hmmm, that's not really an inconcistency but an unsolved (maybe
just technical) problem.
However, QFT in curved spacetime is in reach and actually worked
already to first order e.g. for Hawking radiation...
Anyway, Koobee was probably not referring to Quantum Gravity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hayek" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
29 Mar 2006 11:59:50 AM |
|
|
Koobee Wublee wrote:
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:adoWf.19085$dy4.1235@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Then do not post loaded questions like 'Are you
one of these physicists Smolin is referring to?'.
I still do not get your objection from Gravityman's
comments. The answer is whether you are or you are
not.
Isn't that obvious ?
What you want instead is for us to spend 9
years taking up Ph.D. in physics to understand
that part in Smolin book.
No. Simply the basics as taught to 2nd or 3rd
year physics/math students. Jesus I never studied
physics at uni and picked it up is a few weeks -
and
It shows from your comments. Try to understand the
material. If you have paid any dilligence to the
material you have claimed to have studied
independently, you should have no problems
identifying inconsistencies in GR. In fact, all
you need is to possess a brain that is capable of
reasoning. Is this prerequisite too much to ask?
His brain was once capable of washing. Then he was too
brainwashed to use it for thinking.
that was from Landau which is generally
considered a difficult text. Much better books
for beginning students are now avaiailabe and
some online as well eg
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll_contents.html.
They are all the same. If all you can show is to
recite the passages from one of these chapters, I
suggest priesthood as a career path.
Even if you have not done math past high school 3
months learning calculus and 3 months study of
the above max is all you need. And if you are
not willing to put that kind of effort in how do
you think you will ever understand relativity?
Or is your goal not understanding?
Have you understood any math beyond 1st year
calculus? You have not showed you have in these
ubiquitous years of posting reciting passages from
one chapters to another. I would not be surprised
if you say 'amen' at the end.
Next time you go to the diagnostic lab for
checkup and you visit a doctor. Hope the doctor
would tell you to spend 10 years in medical
school to understand what the blood result
means.
Except at a very basic level that is exactly what
I expect the doctor to do and advise me
accordingly. And I would not ask him loaded
questions like 'Are you one of those doctors so
and so says misunderstands what they were
taught?'. If I did that I would likely, and
correctly, be shown the door and told not to
return.
Medicine is not an exact science if you have not
figured that one out yet. It is very different
from physics where it requires the most rigid
discipline in application of scientific method and
the most important of all, the mathematical
consistency.
Perhaps, you are another Conrad or Hammond in a
different perspective. Keep preaching.
You are not The Wise man formerly called Aurino,
aren't you Kobee Wublee ?
Uwe Hayek.
--
Die wirtschaftliche Freiheit hat keine Sicherheit ohne
Politische Freiheit, und die politische findet ihre
Sicherheit nur in die wirtschaftlichen Freiheit." --
Eugen Richter
This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the
ability to learn from the experience of others, are
also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to
do so. -- Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hayek" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
29 Mar 2006 03:35:31 PM |
|
|
Gravityman wrote:
I just saw the passage in Lee Smolin "Three Roads
to Quantum Gravity"
"Quantum Gravity" is an Oxymoron.
Gravity is Inertia, and inertia is about certainty.
Uncertainty is about the lack of inertia, and this
gives rise to the quantum. How can inertia be
quantified if it is the lack of inertia that just
causes the other quantifications ?
That is the problem with physicists nowadays : they
haven't got a clue what they are dealing with, too
much mathematics and too little physics.
Without asking "why" and "what if", no progress can be
made, and that is what these "abstract physicists"
refuse to do. In order to hide that they are utterly
clueless.
And all attempts to describe Quantum Gravity have
failed, just as all attempts to do physics with String
theories have failed.
Uwe Hayek.
--
Die wirtschaftliche Freiheit hat keine Sicherheit ohne
Politische Freiheit, und die politische findet ihre
Sicherheit nur in die wirtschaftlichen Freiheit." --
Eugen Richter
This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the
ability to learn from the experience of others, are
also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to
do so. -- Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See
.
|
|
|
| User: "JanPB" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
29 Mar 2006 04:25:38 PM |
|
|
Hayek wrote:
Gravityman wrote:
I just saw the passage in Lee Smolin "Three Roads
to Quantum Gravity"
"Quantum Gravity" is an Oxymoron.
Gravity is Inertia, and inertia is about certainty.
Uncertainty is about the lack of inertia, and this
gives rise to the quantum. How can inertia be
quantified if it is the lack of inertia that just
causes the other quantifications ?
That is the problem with physicists nowadays : they
haven't got a clue what they are dealing with, too
much mathematics and too little physics.
No, that's false. There is the right amount of both (it always evens
out) but since there is no theory that covers both micro- and
macro-domains people naturally try to see if already existing theories
can be stretched to get a universal theory.
Without asking "why" and "what if", no progress can be
made, and that is what these "abstract physicists"
refuse to do.
No, it's exactly what they are doing in fact.
In order to hide that they are utterly clueless.
"Utterly clueless"? I rather doubt you can make a meaningful statement
regarding this.
And all attempts to describe Quantum Gravity have
failed, just as all attempts to do physics with String
theories have failed.
Sure, it has always been that way. Theories that preceded a successful
theory had failed. Duh!
But I agree with you that quantum gravity seems a bass ackward way of
doing things.
--
Jan Bielawski
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hayek" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
30 Mar 2006 01:56:23 AM |
|
|
JanPB wrote:
Hayek wrote:
Gravityman wrote:
I just saw the passage in Lee Smolin "Three
Roads to Quantum Gravity"
"Quantum Gravity" is an Oxymoron.
Gravity is Inertia, and inertia is about
certainty. Uncertainty is about the lack of
inertia, and this gives rise to the quantum. How
can inertia be quantified if it is the lack of
inertia that just causes the other
quantifications ?
That is the problem with physicists nowadays :
they haven't got a clue what they are dealing
with, too much mathematics and too little
physics.
No, that's false. There is the right amount of both
(it always evens out) but since there is no theory
that covers both micro- and macro-domains people
naturally try to see if already existing theories
can be stretched to get a universal theory.
So far, without much succes.
Without asking "why" and "what if", no progress
can be made, and that is what these "abstract
physicists" refuse to do.
No, it's exactly what they are doing in fact.
Again, I do not see much evidence of that.
In order to hide that they are utterly clueless.
"Utterly clueless"? I rather doubt you can make a
meaningful statement regarding this.
What is time ? What makes unccertainty ?
Sorry, Fully, Complete and Utterly Clueless.
And all attempts to describe Quantum Gravity have
failed, just as all attempts to do physics with
String theories have failed.
Sure, it has always been that way. Theories that
preceded a successful theory had failed. Duh!
You could say that Maxwell was succesfull, altough it
has been replaced by QED. Newton was succesfull, but
got completed by GR. I do not see String Theory as the
basis for a more complete theory, I think it will turn
out to be absolute junk.
But I agree with you that quantum gravity seems a
bass ackward way of doing things.
What is your reasoning ?
Uwe Hayek.
--
Die wirtschaftliche Freiheit hat keine Sicherheit ohne
Politische Freiheit, und die politische findet ihre
Sicherheit nur in die wirtschaftlichen Freiheit." --
Eugen Richter
This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the
ability to learn from the experience of others, are
also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to
do so. -- Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
30 Mar 2006 07:15:06 AM |
|
|
Hayek wrote:
JanPB wrote:
Hayek wrote:
Gravityman wrote:
I just saw the passage in Lee Smolin "Three
Roads to Quantum Gravity"
"Quantum Gravity" is an Oxymoron.
Gravity is Inertia, and inertia is about
certainty. Uncertainty is about the lack of
inertia, and this gives rise to the quantum. How
can inertia be quantified if it is the lack of
inertia that just causes the other
quantifications ?
That is the problem with physicists nowadays :
they haven't got a clue what they are dealing
with, too much mathematics and too little
physics.
No, that's false. There is the right amount of both
(it always evens out) but since there is no theory
that covers both micro- and macro-domains people
naturally try to see if already existing theories
can be stretched to get a universal theory.
So far, without much succes.
Without asking "why" and "what if", no progress
can be made, and that is what these "abstract
physicists" refuse to do.
No, it's exactly what they are doing in fact.
Again, I do not see much evidence of that.
So much impatience! You should recall that string theory is less than
20 years old. Those who expect an answer and an answer NOW do not have
a good sense of physical history.
Recall that the span of time between Faraday's experiments and
Maxwell's equations was a good twenty or twenty-five years.
Recall that Newton's Principia was twenty-five years in the writing.
Recall that Einstein's paper that founded the principle of the laser
preceded a working laser fifty years later.
Recall that Einstein's paper on mass-energy equivalence preceded a
controlled atomic reaction by nearly forty years.
I think you need to probably just hold on for a bit.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
01 Apr 2006 01:25:57 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> our kind P_aper
D_eliveryboy with his P_ygmy D_enkart as a P_erturbed
D_efender in his P_rostrate D_emeanor of a P_avlovian
D_og who proselytizes the P_roletarian P_hysics with his
P_rimitive D_isposition and his P_ermanently D_ecrepit
mentation as he wrote in message
news:1143724506.307306.24620@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Gravityman wrote:
I just saw the passage in Lee Smolin "Three
Roads to Quantum Gravity"
"Quantum Gravity" is an Oxymoron.
Gravity is Inertia, and inertia is about
certainty. Uncertainty is about the lack of
inertia, and this gives rise to the quantum. How
can inertia be quantified if it is the lack of
inertia that just causes the other
quantifications ?
Hayek wrote:
That is the problem with physicists nowadays :
they haven't got a clue what they are dealing
with, too much mathematics and too little
physics.
[Jan Biel-awekiss *****]
No, that's false. There is the right amount of both
(it always evens out) but since there is no theory
that covers both micro- and macro-domains people
naturally try to see if already existing theories
can be stretched to get a universal theory.
Hayek
So far, without much succes.
Hayek
Without asking "why" and "what if", no progress
can be made, and that is what these "abstract
physicists" refuse to do.
JanPBielawski wrote:
No, it's exactly what they are doing in fact.
Hayek
Again, I do not see much evidence of that.
[PDraper]
So much impatience!
Recall that Einstein's paper that founded the principle
of the laser preceded a working laser fifty years later.
Recall that Einstein's paper on mass-energy equivalence
preceded a controlled atomic reaction by nearly forty years.
I think you need to probably just hold on for a bit.
PD
[hanson]
..... .. AHAHAHA.... ahahaha... AHAHA... PD Draper....
certainly YOU are holding onto fables and fabrications as
a devoted and fanatical disciple of Einstein's gags like a
P_edantic D_emagogue in a P_rep-school D_epartment....
But you too, even you, who shows the classical symptoms
from being a victim of the "Panic in Einstein's Criminal Cult"
shall still enjoy my prime directive that says:
== "Let'em sing!... All of'em!.... It's a beautiful choir!" ==
Thanks for the laughs, Draper,... ahahaha
ahaha.... ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JanPB" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
30 Mar 2006 02:14:41 PM |
|
|
Hayek wrote:
JanPB wrote:
Hayek wrote:
Without asking "why" and "what if", no progress
can be made, and that is what these "abstract
physicists" refuse to do.
No, it's exactly what they are doing in fact.
Again, I do not see much evidence of that.
Well, that's not my fault. Physicists constantly write papers along the
lines of "what" and "what if" and experiment with things. Lots of this
research attempts to disprove relativity.
In order to hide that they are utterly clueless.
"Utterly clueless"? I rather doubt you can make a
meaningful statement regarding this.
What is time ? What makes unccertainty ?
Sorry, Fully, Complete and Utterly Clueless.
So you are saying that anyone who happens not to know certain selected
(by you) final answers concerning reality is "Fully, Complete and
Utterly Clueless"? There is no middle ground?
I'm afraid that judging by this criterion *all* scientists will remain
"Fully, Complete and Utterly Clueless" for *all time*.
(Simply because it is not even obvious if such knowledge is possible to
attain in principle.)
And all attempts to describe Quantum Gravity have
failed, just as all attempts to do physics with
String theories have failed.
Sure, it has always been that way. Theories that
preceded a successful theory had failed. Duh!
You could say that Maxwell was succesfull, altough it
has been replaced by QED. Newton was succesfull, but
got completed by GR. I do not see String Theory as the
basis for a more complete theory, I think it will turn
out to be absolute junk.
I agree with you on that one (Feynman did too). But not because of its
mathematical complication. It's because of its ugliness - whatever that
means. Having said all that - sometimes ugly theories lead you to the
right solution, so you never know if the time you've "wasted" on it was
truly wasted.
But I agree with you that quantum gravity seems a
bass ackward way of doing things.
What is your reasoning ?
Two things: the basic contradiction between gravity as a result of
paths of free fall approaching one another vs. gravity as a force. The
second problem is just this uncomfortable feeling of having seen it all
before - late 19th century/early 20th. At that time too there were two
competing and somewhat incompatible theories (electrodynamics vs.
Newtonian mechanics) and various attempts at their reconcilliation were
made by stretching existing theories beyond the "ugliness" point until
Einstein went back to a careful reexamination of the basics and came up
with a good resolution. Something like this is needed now - my hunch is
that the concept of spacetime as we now define it must go, and we must
start back at Einstein's original 1905 (pre-Minkowski) formulation of
relativity. Spacetime would only appear in the limit as h-bar->0
(something like that).
--
Jan Bielawski
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hayek" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
01 Apr 2006 07:45:08 AM |
|
|
JanPB wrote:
Hayek wrote:
JanPB wrote:
Hayek wrote:
Without asking "why" and "what if", no progress
can be made, and that is what these "abstract
physicists" refuse to do.
No, it's exactly what they are doing in fact.
Again, I do not see much evidence of that.
Well, that's not my fault. Physicists constantly write papers along the
lines of "what" and "what if" and experiment with things. Lots of this
research attempts to disprove relativity.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~notime/Duesberg_On_Science.html
Quote
The successful researcher-the one who receives the
biggest grants, the best career positions, the most
prestigious prizes, the greatest number of published
papers- is the one who generates the most data and the
least controversy.
Unquote
And that is exactly the same what I see.
"Why" should I loose my job, and "What if" I try to
keep it ?
In order to hide that they are utterly clueless.
"Utterly clueless"? I rather doubt you can make a
meaningful statement regarding this.
What is time ? What makes unccertainty ?
Sorry, Fully, Complete and Utterly Clueless.
So you are saying that anyone who happens not to know certain selected
(by you) final answers concerning reality is "Fully, Complete and
Utterly Clueless"? There is no middle ground?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week1.html
Baez:
"
I certainly do not know the solution to the problem
of time.
"
and
Smolin:
"
However, looking beyond this, what
is at stake in quantum gravity is indeed no less
and no more than the entire and ancient mystery:
What is time?
"
In one of the weekly papers by Baez, he describes how
Smolin mathematically contructs a three dimensional
manifold, and adds a "clock field".
This, to me, looks to me as an attempt by somenone who
is Fully, Complete and Utterly clueless.
Baez uses the words "*CERTAINLY* do not know". Does
that sound as middle ground to you ?
Reading "About Time" from Davies, is the same as
reasding "Crossfire : the plot that killed Kennedy",
from Jim Marss, it gives a lot of solutions, burt does
not tell you which one is the right one.
I'm afraid that judging by this criterion *all* scientists will remain
"Fully, Complete and Utterly Clueless" for *all time*.
I can defend my views on many different levels, and it
is the first time someone can explain relativity and
QM in an intuitive manner. I welcome competing views
that manage to do this, or someone that point to an
inconsistency, or falsifies my views.
(Simply because it is not even obvious if such knowledge is possible to
attain in principle.)
The tell-tales (I used to sail a dinghy) are all there
, and it fits.
And all attempts to describe Quantum Gravity have
failed, just as all attempts to do physics with
String theories have failed.
Sure, it has always been that way. Theories that
preceded a successful theory had failed. Duh!
You could say that Maxwell was succesfull, altough it
has been replaced by QED. Newton was succesfull, but
got completed by GR. I do not see String Theory as the
basis for a more complete theory, I think it will turn
out to be absolute junk.
I agree with you on that one (Feynman did too). But not because of its
mathematical complication. It's because of its ugliness - whatever that
means. Having said all that - sometimes ugly theories lead you to the
right solution, so you never know if the time you've "wasted" on it was
truly wasted.
But I agree with you that quantum gravity seems a
bass ackward way of doing things.
What is your reasoning ?
Two things: the basic contradiction between gravity as a result of
paths of free fall approaching one another vs. gravity as a force. The
second problem is just this uncomfortable feeling of having seen it all
before - late 19th century/early 20th. At that time too there were two
competing and somewhat incompatible theories (electrodynamics vs.
Newtonian mechanics) and various attempts at their reconcilliation were
made by stretching existing theories beyond the "ugliness" point until
Einstein went back to a careful reexamination of the basics and came up
with a good resolution. Something like this is needed now - my hunch is
that the concept of spacetime as we now define it must go, and we must
start back at Einstein's original 1905 (pre-Minkowski) formulation of
relativity. Spacetime would only appear in the limit as h-bar->0
(something like that).
I think Mach's principle, and the equivalence of heavy
mass and inertial mass, as indicated by Eotvos
experiments , gives us the clue to solve much of the
riddle.
Uwe Hayek.
--
Die wirtschaftliche Freiheit hat keine Sicherheit ohne
Politische Freiheit, und die politische findet ihre
Sicherheit nur in die wirtschaftlichen Freiheit." --
Eugen Richter
This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the
ability to learn from the experience of others, are
also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to
do so. -- Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
29 Mar 2006 02:24:42 PM |
|
|
Gravityman wrote:
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Gravityman" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143595524.922285.323910@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Are you one of these physicists Smolin is referring to?
Now that is a loaded moronic question if I ever heard one. Why bother
asking since you obviously do not understand it well enough to judge the
response?
What do you say about it.
I say GR. is what the equally esteemed Wheeler says about it:
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/s2_5635.pdf
In particular see section 2.8 - THE BOUNDARY OF THE BOUNDARY PRINCIPLE AND
GEOMETRODYNAMICS. However I doubt you have the math to understand it -
which raises a big concern I have about your type. You are quick to post
stuff from popularizations as if it was fact beyond question yet never seem
to want to learn the detail so you can make up your own mind. I wonder why?
My suspicion it's it is a bit too much actual work for your real purpose
which is to stir up trouble.
Lee Smolin has this to say about GR:
"As it happened, general relativity already existed, but - and this
is a strange thing to say - it was widely misunderstood, even by
many of the physicists who specialized in its study.
Unfortunately, general relativity was commonly regarded as
a machine that produces spacetime geometries, which
are then to be treated as Newton treated his absolute
space and time: as fixed and absolute entities within which
things move. The question then to be answered was which
of these absolute spacetimes describes the universe? The
only differences between this and Newton's absolute space
and time is that there is no choice in Newton's theory,
while general relativity offers a selection of possible
spacetimes.
Wrong - the geometry is determined by the stress energy tensor via the EFE -
G = T. In fact GR. posseses a very remarkable property - the EFE's all by
themselves determine particle motion.
This is how the theory is presented in some
textbooks,
Not in the ones I read.
and there are even some philosophers, who
should know better, who seem to interpret it that way.
Julian Barbour's important contribution was to show
convincingly that this was not at all the right way to understand
the theory. Instead, the theory has to be understood as
describing a dynamically evolving network of relationships.
Julain was of course not the only person to learn to see
general relativity in this way. John Stachel also came
to this understanding, at least partly through his work
as the first head of the project to prepare Einstein's
collected papers for publication. But Julian came to
the study of general relativity equipped with a tool that no
one else had- the general mathematical formulation of a
theory in which space and time are nothing but dynamically
evolving relationships. Julian was then able to show how
Einstein's theory of general relativity could be understood
as an example of just such a theory. This demonstration
laid bare the relational nature of the description of space
and time in general relativity."
If you want to understand GR learn about it from proper texts - such would
be a much better use of your time that posting quotes from popularizations
whose basic purpose and tone seems to be to stir up trouble. That way you
can judge for yourself.
Bill
I just saw the passage in Lee Smolin "Three Roads to Quantum
Gravity" and just wondering what is people thought about it to
gain more insight. What you want instead is for us to spend 9
years taking up Ph.D. in physics to understand that part in
Smolin book.
Maybe you are the Grandfather of Pentchos zombies.
Next time you go to the diagnostic lab for checkup and
you visit a doctor. Hope the doctor would tell you to spend
10 years in medical school to understand what the blood
result means.
Grav
That depends on what you mean by "understand".
If a doctor tells you the blood results means you need your gall
bladder out, you have to take it on his word that those blood results
indicate that. If you want to know more -- that is, what numbers in
your blood results indicate that and why -- then asking a professional
will *sometimes* lead to a short, dumbed-down account of what numbers
in the report indicated that. However, if you want to understand it to
the level where you could look at your own numbers and arrive at the
same diagnosis, or look at someone else's slightly different numbers
and arrive at that diagnosis, or more importantly be able to rule out
other possible diagnoses -- in short, *doing* what a doctor does --
then you'll have to do the work to learn what a doctor learns to be
able to do that.
Likewise, if you want to hear what Smolin says about GR, then it
sufficient to take his word for it. If you want to know a little more
about the particulars of what Smolin is referring to there, then you
can ask -- especially if you're paying for the service -- someone
knowledgeable to give you additional but still digestable information.
If you want to understand it enough to decide for yourself whether you
agree with Smolin or not, then -- yes -- a considerable amount of work
is required.
This is the grunt-work of physics, if you want to learn physics enough
to *do* physics.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
31 Mar 2006 01:26:17 PM |
|
|
Gravityman wrote:
Are you one of these physicists Smolin is referring to? What do
you say about it.
Lee Smolin has this to say about GR:
"As it happened, general relativity already existed, but - and this
is a strange thing to say - it was widely misunderstood, even by
many of the physicists who specialized in its study.
Correct. The issue has turned more political than scientific.
Unfortunately, general relativity was commonly regarded as
a machine that produces spacetime geometries, which
are then to be treated as Newton treated his absolute
space and time: as fixed and absolute entities within which
things move.
This is correct. Einstein failed to incorporate Mach's principle in GR
and arrive at a relational dynamics. Absolutism rules GR in a way no
different than Newton.
The question then to be answered was which
of these absolute spacetimes describes the universe? The
only differences between this and Newton's absolute space
and time is that there is no choice in Newton's theory,
Incorrect. Absolute space and time imply a much broader choice of
spacetimes than absolute spacetime, where the geometry can only be
changed.
Correct is the notion of spacetime is limited to geometry only but that
is a very norrow minded view. I think the author has started exhibiting
his own limitations.
while general relativity offers a selection of possible
spacetimes. This is how the theory is presented in some
textbooks, and there are even some philosophers, who
should know better, who seem to interpret it that way.
Why would a physicist like Smolin would like to mess with
philosophers? Of course, he wants to pass his own agenda of Penrose
newtorks and silly things like that.
Julian Barbour's important contribution was to show
convincingly that this was not at all the right way to understand
the theory. Instead, the theory has to be understood as
describing a dynamically evolving network of relationships.
Smolin now claims that Barbour is correct and the rest of the world
wrong. He uses an informal fallacy called "appeal to authority", if
Barbour can be called an authority given the cranky ideas he has.
Julain was of course not the only person to learn to see
"only" ?
general relativity in this way. John Stachel also came
to this understanding, at least partly through his work
as the first head of the project to prepare Einstein's
collected papers for publication. But Julian came to
the study of general relativity equipped with a tool that no
one else had- the general mathematical formulation of a
theory in which space and time are nothing but dynamically
evolving relationships. Julian was then able to show how
How is that different from a geometric interpretation? Furter, I think
Smolin misunderstand Barbout who claims there is not Time at all. How
can there be a dynamic relationship of space with something that does
not exist? i think Smolin got to far pushing his own failed agenda.
Einstein's theory of general relativity could be understood
as an example of just such a theory. This demonstration
laid bare the relational nature of the description of space
and time in general relativity.
There can be no relational nature of space and time in GR. This is
propesterous claim and shows that the real cranks are heads of
universities these days. As a matter of fact, there is no relational
dynamics around because that would mean amongst other things a quantum
leap in understanding nature.
the question that has to be answered before is whether relational
dynamics can stand on thier own. Newton's backet argument is not fully
rebutted by relationists and this is a consensous. Arguments against
the bucket experiment cannot be verified experimentally.
Smolin has failed to quantize GR and he attempts to verbally provide
support for his views. GR cannot be quantized, Uncle Al has told you
why:
c h G
QM inf h 0
GR c 0 G
What are these people are talking about and writing books about? They
are the cause of the accelerating intelligent design movement. If
physics starts getting so confusing and unable to deal with its
limitation, people will turn back to first causes and burn the books
once more.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
29 Mar 2006 01:04:23 AM |
|
|
Gravityman wrote:
Are you one of these physicists Smolin is referring to? What do
you say about it.
Lee Smolin has this to say about GR:
"As it happened, general relativity already existed, but - and this
is a strange thing to say - it was widely misunderstood, even by
many of the physicists who specialized in its study.
Unfortunately, general relativity was commonly regarded as
a machine that produces spacetime geometries, which
are then to be treated as Newton treated his absolute
space and time: as fixed and absolute entities within which
things move.
<< The question then to be answered was which
of these absolute spacetimes describes the universe? >>
Only one satifies this well known physical and mathematical
principle:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/forces/isq.html
<< The Lorenz gauge is incomplete, in the sense that there is
this residual gauge freedom. However, the gauge degrees of
freedom propagate at the speed of light. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
Sue...
snip
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
29 Mar 2006 02:02:19 PM |
|
|
Gravityman wrote:
Are you one of these physicists Smolin is referring to? What do
you say about it.
Lee Smolin has this to say about GR:
"As it happened, general relativity already existed, but - and this
is a strange thing to say - it was widely misunderstood, even by
many of the physicists who specialized in its study.
Unfortunately, general relativity was commonly regarded as
a machine that produces spacetime geometries, which
are then to be treated as Newton treated his absolute
space and time: as fixed and absolute entities within which
things move. The question then to be answered was which
of these absolute spacetimes describes the universe? The
only differences between this and Newton's absolute space
and time is that there is no choice in Newton's theory,
while general relativity offers a selection of possible
spacetimes. This is how the theory is presented in some
textbooks, and there are even some philosophers, who
should know better, who seem to interpret it that way.
Julian Barbour's important contribution was to show
convincingly that this was not at all the right way to understand
the theory. Instead, the theory has to be understood as
describing a dynamically evolving network of relationships.
Julain was of course not the only person to learn to see
general relativity in this way. John Stachel also came
to this understanding, at least partly through his work
as the first head of the project to prepare Einstein's
collected papers for publication. But Julian came to
the study of general relativity equipped with a tool that no
one else had- the general mathematical formulation of a
theory in which space and time are nothing but dynamically
evolving relationships. Julian was then able to show how
Einstein's theory of general relativity could be understood
as an example of just such a theory. This demonstration
laid bare the relational nature of the description of space
and time in general relativity."
I'm sure there are a lot of physicists that have not only
misunderstandings, but very little understanding of the subject at
all. Mostly, these are people who have never been exposed to it in a
classroom or have only read popular presentations of the subject. Why
would we expect physicists whose main area of concentration is very far
removed from the subject to have more than a cursory understanding in
the first place.
As far as those trained in GR itself, there are probably areas within
the theory that even some of those people have misunderstandings about,
but that is what leads to debate and that can lead to further
clarification for everybody. No scientific theory can ever be
considered closed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
29 Mar 2006 02:42:12 PM |
|
|
On 29 Mar 2006 12:02:19 -0800, "Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote:
Gravityman wrote:
Are you one of these physicists Smolin is referring to? What do
you say about it.
Lee Smolin has this to say about GR:
"As it happened, general relativity already existed, but - and this
is a strange thing to say - it was widely misunderstood, even by
many of the physicists who specialized in its study.
Unfortunately, general relativity was commonly regarded as
a machine that produces spacetime geometries, which
are then to be treated as Newton treated his absolute
space and time: as fixed and absolute entities within which
things move. The question then to be answered was which
of these absolute spacetimes describes the universe? The
only differences between this and Newton's absolute space
and time is that there is no choice in Newton's theory,
while general relativity offers a selection of possible
spacetimes. This is how the theory is presented in some
textbooks, and there are even some philosophers, who
should know better, who seem to interpret it that way.
Julian Barbour's important contribution was to show
convincingly that this was not at all the right way to understand
the theory. Instead, the theory has to be understood as
describing a dynamically evolving network of relationships.
Julain was of course not the only person to learn to see
general relativity in this way. John Stachel also came
to this understanding, at least partly through his work
as the first head of the project to prepare Einstein's
collected papers for publication. But Julian came to
the study of general relativity equipped with a tool that no
one else had- the general mathematical formulation of a
theory in which space and time are nothing but dynamically
evolving relationships. Julian was then able to show how
Einstein's theory of general relativity could be understood
as an example of just such a theory. This demonstration
laid bare the relational nature of the description of space
and time in general relativity."
I'm sure there are a lot of physicists that have not only
misunderstandings, but very little understanding of the subject at
all. Mostly, these are people who have never been exposed to it in a
classroom or have only read popular presentations of the subject. Why
would we expect physicists whose main area of concentration is very far
removed from the subject to have more than a cursory understanding in
the first place.
As far as those trained in GR itself, there are probably areas within
the theory that even some of those people have misunderstandings about,
but that is what leads to debate and that can lead to further
clarification for everybody. No scientific theory can ever be
considered closed.
Not even Einstein understood his own theory. Relativists have a funny
and rather annoying habit. As soon as someone points out a flaw in GR,
they immediately ripost that the theory is misunderstood. IMO, GR is
misunderstood because it really explains nothing. It is chicken *****
physics taken to its ultimate level.
The truth is that there can be no relationships in spacetime (or
between spacetimes) because relationships require the existence of
change whereas spacetime forbids change. This is the reason that Sir
Karl Popper called spacetime "Einstein's block universe in which
nothing ever happens".
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
More Nasty Little Truth About Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm
But then again Smolin, like Brian "superstring" Greene of Columbia
University, is a notorious time travel believing crackpot. But we
already knew that. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "JanPB" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
29 Mar 2006 07:33:56 PM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
Relativists have a funny
and rather annoying habit. As soon as someone points out a flaw in GR,
they immediately ripost that the theory is misunderstood.
Really? Haven't really noticed that but maybe I wasn't paying
attention.
IMO, GR is
misunderstood because it really explains nothing. It is chicken *****
physics taken to its ultimate level.
How about some arguments - talk is cheap, you know.
The truth is that there can be no relationships in spacetime (or
between spacetimes) because relationships require the existence of
change whereas spacetime forbids change.
Sure, but any other deterministic theory (e.g. Newtonian mechanics)
suffers from this same problem. You are not saying anything new.
--
Jan Bielawski
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
30 Mar 2006 12:09:26 AM |
|
|
On 29 Mar 2006 17:33:56 -0800, "JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
Traveler wrote:
Relativists have a funny
and rather annoying habit. As soon as someone points out a flaw in GR,
they immediately ripost that the theory is misunderstood.
Really? Haven't really noticed that but maybe I wasn't paying
attention.
Says the prime perpetrator. ahahaha...
IMO, GR is
misunderstood because it really explains nothing. It is chicken *****
physics taken to its ultimate level.
How about some arguments - talk is cheap, you know.
It's chicken ***** because, like Newtonian "physics" before it, it
offers no physical mechanism in the way of an explanation for
anything. It's Newtons's "hypotheses non fingo" ***** all over
again, only worse. "Chicken *****" does not do it justice. ahaha...
The truth is that there can be no relationships in spacetime (or
between spacetimes) because relationships require the existence of
change whereas spacetime forbids change.
Sure, but any other deterministic theory (e.g. Newtonian mechanics)
suffers from this same problem. You are not saying anything new.
Wrong. Newtonian physics (while also being chicken *****, aha...) never
made time a physical dimension. Motion is possible in Newton's model
even if it posits a deterministic billiard ball universe.
Einstein's spacetime, by contrast, makes motion/change impossible
(deny if you're a fucking idiot). One cannot even talk of determinism
in conjunction with spacetime because determinism assumes the
existence of change. Thus spacetime is 100% fictitious ***** (a
block universe in which nothing happens, ahaha...) in the tradition of
ptolemaic epicycles. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "JanPB" |
|
| Title: Re: Smolin says GR widely misunderstood even by physicists, agree? |
30 Mar 2006 01:32:36 AM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
Sure, but any other deterministic theory (e.g. Newtonian mechanics)
suffers from this same problem. You are not saying anything new.
Wrong. Newtonian physics (while also being chicken *****, aha...) never
made time a physical dimension. Motion is possible in Newton's model
even if it posits a deterministic billiard ball universe.
You have to define what "made time a physical dimension" means. Motion
"is possible" in Einsteinian mechanics also. The lack of simultaneity
there makes no difference.
Einstein's spacetime, by contrast, makes motion/change impossible
(deny if you're a fucking idiot).
Of course I deny it, unless you mean something very specific and known
only to you this statement is patent nonsense. I know where it's coming
from but it's wrong. It's either both Newtonian and Einsteinian
mechanics have no motion or neither.
One cannot even talk of determinism
in conjunction with spacetime because determinism assumes the
existence of change.
There is change in both N. and E. mechanics. What trips you is the lack
of simultaneity - think it over.
Thus spacetime is 100% fictitious ***** (a
block universe in which nothing happens, ahaha...) in the tradition of
ptolemaic epicycles. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Spacetime is fictitious but so are all other physical models.
--
Jan Bielawski
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: did not expect this. |
30 Mar 2006 06:51:12 AM |
|
|
On 29 Mar 2006 23:32:36 -0800, "JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
Traveler wrote:
Sure, but any other deterministic theory (e.g. Newtonian mechanics)
suffers from this same problem. You are not saying anything new.
Wrong. Newtonian physics (while also being chicken *****, aha...) never
made time a physical dimension. Motion is possible in Newton's model
even if it posits a deterministic billiard ball universe.
You have to define what "made time a physical dimension" means. Motion
"is possible" in Einsteinian mechanics also. The lack of simultaneity
there makes no difference.
Einstein (and the majority of relativists) believed and taught that
spacetime had a separate existence from matter. Brian "superstring"
Greene (the time travel believing crackpot from Columbia U.) teaches
to this day that matter affects spacetime which, in turn, affects the
motion of matter.
Einstein's spacetime, by contrast, makes motion/change impossible
(deny if you're a fucking idiot).
Of course I deny it, unless you mean something very specific and known
only to you this statement is patent nonsense. I know where it's coming
from but it's wrong. It's either both Newtonian and Einsteinian
mechanics have no motion or neither.
You are stupid as *****. I did not expect this crap from you. I tend to
overestimate the intelligence of ***** kissers.
Nothing Moves in Spacetime:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
One cannot even talk of determinism
in conjunction with spacetime because determinism assumes the
existence of change.
There is change in both N. and E. mechanics. What trips you is the lack
of simultaneity - think it over.
You're getting stupider by the minute.
Thus spacetime is 100% fictitious ***** (a
block universe in which nothing happens, ahaha...) in the tradition of
ptolemaic epicycles. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Spacetime is fictitious but so are all other physical models.
By "spacetime is fictitious" I mean it represents nothing in reality.
The model of the electron, by contrast, is not fictitious because it
represents soemnthing that exists.
You are one of the worst ***** kissers on usenet, Bielawski. Even worse
than Uncle *****. And again, you're stupid as *****. ahahaha... But
I think that it's because you are getting senile. I think it's time
that all old farts like you croak or something so physics can breathe
some fresh air. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Making phun of "physicists" is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: did not expect this. |
30 Mar 2006 03:09:28 PM |
|
|
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:v9kn22p0hdbo5i6rvem3d1esks030s093u@4ax.com...
| On 29 Mar 2006 23:32:36 -0800, "JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| >Traveler wrote:
| >>
| >> >Sure, but any other deterministic theory (e.g. Newtonian mechanics)
| >> >suffers from this same problem. You are not saying anything new.
| >>
| >> Wrong. Newtonian physics (while also being chicken *****, aha...) never
| >> made time a physical dimension. Motion is possible in Newton's model
| >> even if it posits a deterministic billiard ball universe.
| >
| >You have to define what "made time a physical dimension" means. Motion
| >"is possible" in Einsteinian mechanics also. The lack of simultaneity
| >there makes no difference.
|
| Einstein (and the majority of relativists) believed and taught that
| spacetime had a separate existence from matter. Brian "superstring"
| Greene (the time travel believing crackpot from Columbia U.) teaches
| to this day that matter affects spacetime which, in turn, affects the
| motion of matter.
|
| >> Einstein's spacetime, by contrast, makes motion/change impossible
| >> (deny if you're a fucking idiot).
| >
| >Of course I deny it, unless you mean something very specific and known
| >only to you this statement is patent nonsense. I know where it's coming
| >from but it's wrong. It's either both Newtonian and Einsteinian
| >mechanics have no motion or neither.
|
| You are stupid as *****. I did not expect this crap from you. I tend to
| overestimate the intelligence of ***** kissers.
|
| Nothing Moves in Spacetime:
| http://www.rebel | | | | | | | |
