| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Landle" |
| Date: |
18 Jan 2005 07:20:40 AM |
| Object: |
The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
I saw this nice looking magazine lying around and read
it and finally understood about Einstein and why there
are so many cranks now and what made cranks.
The magazine is the September 2004 issue of Discover
Magazine with the cover "Special Einstein Issue: 100
Years of Genius without LImit".
Inside is an article about how Einstein hated Quantum
Mechanics. Some direct quotes read "Einstein never
wavered in his rejection of quantum mechanics. HIs
motive for making a unified field theory was not to
extend the domain of quantum mechanics; it was
rather to find an alternative to quantum mechanics.
No research program that accepts quantum mechanics
as a given can count itself to be within Einstein's legacy."
Some parts read:
"There are by now only a minority of physicists who
think Einstein was right to reject quantum theory as
the foundation of our scientific description of nature.
No theory has been more successful at explaining a
vast array of experimental data. It is the basis of our
understanding of virtually all of physics, with the
possible exception of gravity and cosmology. Einstein
was willing to concede that quantum mechanics
explains the record behavior of the subatomic world,
but he was convinced it had two flaws. First, it fails
to give precise predictions for the outcomes of
individual processes. Instead, it gives ony statistical
predictions. To check them, one must do an experiment
many times and compare the resulting distributions of
outcomes with the predictions. Second, quantum
theory fails to give an objective picture of the world
that is unconnected to our role as observers. The
formulas of quantum theory correspond to our actions
in preparing experiments and measuring their outcomes.
Einstein objected to this because he believed strongly
that physics should provide a picture of nature "as it
is in itself".
After I read the article, it occurs me to that what these
folks... Thomson, Seto, Fredifixx, TomGee, Smart, etc.
are doing is following the footstep of Einstein. The
article continues:
"So what is Einstein's real legacy? Are any of us his
followers? In this centennial year, there will be many
who claim the mantle. That includes the community
of relativists, but most of them rarely look beyond the
theory. Instead they study it by finding solutions on
computers or looking for gravity waves. There are
also a few physicists who follow Einstein in
rejecting quantum theory and in searching for an
alternative. Einstein would have been happy that
some scientists agree with him, but he would most
likely have been critical that much of the work in that
area ignores the problem of unification. Some string
theorists will claim to be Einsteinians, and certainly
Einstein would have approved of their search for a
unification of physics. But here is how Brian Greene,
in his most recent book, The Fabric of the Cosmos,
describes the state of the field: "Even today, more
than three decades after its initial articulation,
most string practitioners believe we still don't have
a comprehensive answer to the rudementary
question, What is string theory? Most researchers
feel that our current formulation of string theory
still lacks the kind of core principle we find at the
heart of other major advances. Einstein's whole
life was a search for a theory of principles. It is
hard to imagine he would have sustained interest
in a theory for which, after more than 30 years of
intensive investigation, no one is able to put forward
any core principles.".
The author of the Discover magazine continues:
"I think a sober assessment is that up till now,
almost all of us who work in theoretical physics
have failed to live up to Einstein's legacy. His
demand for a coherent theory of principle was
uncompromising. It has not been reached - not
by quantum theory, not by special or general
relativity, not by anything invented since. Einstein's
moral clarity, his insistence that we should accept
nothing less than a theory that gives a completely
coherent account of individual phenomena, cannot
be followed unless we reject almost all contemporary
theoretical physics as insufficient. So is it possible
to follow the path of Einstein. To do so, you cannot
be a crank; you must be a well-trained physicist,
literate in current theories and aware of their limitations.
And you must insist on absolute clarity in your
own work, rather than follow any fad or popular
direction. Given the pressures of competition for
academic positions, to follow Einstein's path is
to risk the price that he paid: unemployment in
spite of abundant talent and skill at the craft of
theoretical physics."
At this point. I now understood what made the
likes of Thomson, Seto, TomGee, Fredifixx, Smart,
etc. They are simply following Einstein Legacy. Only
advice to them is they must master the present
theory of physics first. Be literate in current theories
and aware of their limitations.
Btw... I'd share something that I didn't hear
before... that Einstein is dissatisfied with his
own theories. The passage says: "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. He
rejected his own theory, even before most physicists
had come ot accept it, for reasons that only he cared
about. For another 10 years, as others in the world
of physics slowly absorbed special relativity, Einstein
pursued a lonely path away from it."
Folks. Is there hope? Mainstream physicists don't
want to follow the footstep of Einstein lest they
be out of job. So that leaves cranks to develope
the theories. Can more open minded scientists like
like Bjoern fulfill Einstein dream?
Lastly. What is there need for a theory that can
make all of the present ones subset of it. Because
unknown to most physicists. There is a richer
world out there where telepathy, clairvoyancy,
teleportation, etc. are normal occurences. Our
current physics can't explain them. One scientist
tried to explain them using Quantum Mechanics
concepts and look what happens, you have an
international crank by the name of Jack Sarfatti.
So we need to develope or remodel the Standard
Model to make a more enhanced one with more degree
of freedom. I just hope some more open minded
mainstream scientists can step outside the box. Only
they can produce the true Theory of Everything. Cranks
like Smart, TomGee, etc. can't do by themselves (unless
they seriously study physics and know the ins and outs
of it.. only then can they remodel it successfully).
Landle
.
|
|
| User: "Harry Hakenkreuz" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
18 Jan 2005 11:35:43 AM |
|
|
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106054440.497066.158230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I saw this nice looking magazine lying around and read
it and finally understood about Einstein and why there
are so many cranks now and what made cranks.
The magazine is the September 2004 issue of Discover
Magazine
Journalist = someone who writes about something he knows nothing about, for
others.
extend the domain of quantum mechanics; it was
rather to find an alternative to quantum mechanics.
No research program that accepts quantum mechanics
as a given can count itself to be within Einstein's legacy."
"within Einstein's legacy"?
The artical is focusing on "Personalities", not real Physics, not on the
issues.
You are reading a standard issue journalistic spin to make the subject more
exciting by having a "fight" or "personal conflict" in the subject area.
This is Old stuff, mid 1950's.
You should research how much Einstein's first wife wrote many of early
scientific papers they published
"There are by now only a minority of physicists who
think Einstein was right to reject quantum theory as
the foundation of our scientific description of nature.
No theory has been more successful at explaining a
vast array of experimental data. It is the basis of our
understanding of virtually all of physics, with the
possible exception of gravity and cosmology. Einstein
was willing to concede that quantum mechanics
explains the record behavior of the subatomic world,
but he was convinced it had two flaws. First, it fails
to give precise predictions for the outcomes of
individual processes. Instead, it gives ony statistical
predictions. To check them, one must do an experiment
many times and compare the resulting distributions of
outcomes with the predictions. Second, quantum
theory fails to give an objective picture of the world
that is unconnected to our role as observers. The
formulas of quantum theory correspond to our actions
in preparing experiments and measuring their outcomes.
Einstein objected to this because he believed strongly
that physics should provide a picture of nature "as it
is in itself".
After I read the article, it occurs me to that what these
folks... Thomson, Seto, Fredifixx, TomGee, Smart, etc.
are doing is following the footstep of Einstein. The
article continues:
"So what is Einstein's real legacy? Are any of us his
followers? In this centennial year, there will be many
who claim the mantle. That includes the community
of relativists, but most of them rarely look beyond the
theory. Instead they study it by finding solutions on
computers or looking for gravity waves. There are
also a few physicists who follow Einstein in
rejecting quantum theory and in searching for an
alternative. Einstein would have been happy that
some scientists agree with him, but he would most
likely have been critical that much of the work in that
area ignores the problem of unification. Some string
theorists will claim to be Einsteinians, and certainly
Einstein would have approved of their search for a
unification of physics. But here is how Brian Greene,
in his most recent book, The Fabric of the Cosmos,
describes the state of the field: "Even today, more
than three decades after its initial articulation,
most string practitioners believe we still don't have
a comprehensive answer to the rudementary
question, What is string theory? Most researchers
feel that our current formulation of string theory
still lacks the kind of core principle we find at the
heart of other major advances. Einstein's whole
life was a search for a theory of principles. It is
hard to imagine he would have sustained interest
in a theory for which, after more than 30 years of
intensive investigation, no one is able to put forward
any core principles.".
The author of the Discover magazine continues:
"I think a sober assessment is that up till now,
almost all of us who work in theoretical physics
have failed to live up to Einstein's legacy. His
demand for a coherent theory of principle was
uncompromising. It has not been reached - not
by quantum theory, not by special or general
relativity, not by anything invented since. Einstein's
moral clarity, his insistence that we should accept
nothing less than a theory that gives a completely
coherent account of individual phenomena, cannot
be followed unless we reject almost all contemporary
theoretical physics as insufficient. So is it possible
to follow the path of Einstein. To do so, you cannot
be a crank; you must be a well-trained physicist,
literate in current theories and aware of their limitations.
And you must insist on absolute clarity in your
own work, rather than follow any fad or popular
direction. Given the pressures of competition for
academic positions, to follow Einstein's path is
to risk the price that he paid: unemployment in
spite of abundant talent and skill at the craft of
theoretical physics."
At this point. I now understood what made the
likes of Thomson, Seto, TomGee, Fredifixx, Smart,
etc. They are simply following Einstein Legacy. Only
advice to them is they must master the present
theory of physics first. Be literate in current theories
and aware of their limitations.
Btw... I'd share something that I didn't hear
before... that Einstein is dissatisfied with his
own theories. The passage says: "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. He
rejected his own theory, even before most physicists
had come ot accept it, for reasons that only he cared
about. For another 10 years, as others in the world
of physics slowly absorbed special relativity, Einstein
pursued a lonely path away from it."
Folks. Is there hope? Mainstream physicists don't
want to follow the footstep of Einstein lest they
be out of job. So that leaves cranks to develope
the theories. Can more open minded scientists like
like Bjoern fulfill Einstein dream?
Lastly. What is there need for a theory that can
make all of the present ones subset of it. Because
unknown to most physicists. There is a richer
world out there where telepathy, clairvoyancy,
teleportation, etc. are normal occurences. Our
current physics can't explain them. One scientist
tried to explain them using Quantum Mechanics
concepts and look what happens, you have an
international crank by the name of Jack Sarfatti.
So we need to develope or remodel the Standard
Model to make a more enhanced one with more degree
of freedom. I just hope some more open minded
mainstream scientists can step outside the box. Only
they can produce the true Theory of Everything. Cranks
like Smart, TomGee, etc. can't do by themselves (unless
they seriously study physics and know the ins and outs
of it.. only then can they remodel it successfully).
Landle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Landle" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
18 Jan 2005 04:44:11 PM |
|
|
Harry Hakenkreuz wrote:
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106054440.497066.158230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I saw this nice looking magazine lying around and read
it and finally understood about Einstein and why there
are so many cranks now and what made cranks.
The magazine is the September 2004 issue of Discover
Magazine
Journalist = someone who writes about something he knows nothing
about, for
others.
Hold it right there. The author of the article is Lee Smolin, a
theoretical physicist who wrote the books "The Life of the Cosmos"
and "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity".
The following is the complete article. Critics welcomed.
Einstein's Lonely Path
by Lee Smolin (theoretical physicist)
September 2004 Discover Magazine
For more than two centuries after Newton published his theories of
space, time, and motion in 1687, most physicists were Newtonians.
They believed, as Newton did, that space and time are absolute,
that force causes acceleration, and that gravity is a force
conveyed across a vacuum at a distance. Since Darwin there are few
professional biologists who are not Darwinians, and if most
psychologists no longer call themselves Freudians, few doubt that
there is an unconscious or that sexuality plays a big role in it.
So as we celebrate the Einstein's 100th anniversary of Einstein's
great discoveries, the question arises: How many professional
physicists are Einsteinians?
The superficial answer is that we all are. No professional
physicist today doubts that quantum theory and relativity theory
have stood up to experimental tests, but the term "Einsteinian"
does not exist, I've never heard or read it. Nor have I ever
encountered any evidence for a "school of Einstein." There is a
community of people scattered around the world who call themselves
relativists, whose main scientific work centers on general
relativity. But relativists make up only a tiny minority of
theoretical p hysicists, and there is no country where they
dominate the intellectual atmosphere of the field.
Strange as it may seem, Albert Einstein, the discoverer of both
quantum and relativity theory, and hence clearly the preeminent
physicist of the modern era, faded to leave behind an intellectual
following with any appreciable influence. Why most physicists
followed other leaders in directions Einstein opposed is a story
that must be told if this centennial year is to be other than an
empty celebration of a myth, unconnected to the reality of who
Einstein was and what he believed in.
Physicists I've met who knew Einstein told me they found his
thinking slow compared with the stars of the day. While he was
competent enough with the basic mathematical tools of physics,
many other physicists surrounding him in Berlin and Princeton were
better at it. So what accounted for his genius? In retrospect, I
believe what allowed Einstein to achieve so much was primarily a
moral quality. He simply cared far more than most of his
colleagues that the laws of physics should explain everything in
nature coherently and consistently. As a result, he was acutely
sensitive to flaws and contradictions in the logical structure of
physical theories.
EINSTEIN'S ABILITY TO SEE FLAWS AND HIS FIERCE refusal to
compromise had real repercussions. His professors did not support
him in his search for an academic job, and he was unemployed until
he found work as a patent inspector in Bern, Switzerland. The
problem was not just that he skipped classes. He saw right through
his elders' complacent acceptance of Newtonian physics. The young
Einstein was obsessed with logical flaws that were glaringly
obvious, but only to him. While the great English physicist Lord
Rayleigh said he saw "only a few clouds on the horizon" remaining
to be understood, the 16-year-old Einstein wondered what would
happen to his image in a mirror if he traveled at the speed of
light.
From the outset, Einstein's single goal in science was to discover
what he called theories of principle. These postulate general
rules that all phenomena must satisfy. If such theories are true,
they must apply universally. In his study of physics he identified
two existing theories of principle: the laws of motion set out by
Galileo and Newton and the laws of thermodynamics. The basic
principle of the first is the relativity of uniform motion, that
the speed of your own unchanging motion is impossible to d etect.
Einstein's discovery of special relativity came from 10 years of
meditation on how to reconcile the relativity of motion with James
Clerk Maxwells theory of electromagnetism, which describes the
propagation of light.
While he mused about electromagnetism, Einstein made
thermodynamics the focus of his early work. He began by following
the Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, who argued that the laws
of thermodynamics could be derived from applying statistics to the
motion of atoms. This view was unpopular at the time because many
influential professors did not believe matter was made of atoms.
They instead regarded matter as continuous. Einstein's work led to
his demonstration, in 1905, that Brownian motion-the incessant ,
jerky movements of pollen grains or other tiny objects immersed in
liquid- offered a proof of the existence of atoms.
At the same time, Einstein applied Boltzmann's approach to
thermodynamics to electrodynamics. This led to his discovery of
the photon, a discrete packet of electromagnetic energy, and to
the realization that such a packet must be both a wave and a
particle. Although Einstein was thus the discoverer of quantum
phenomena, he became in time the main opponent of quantum
mechanics. By his own account, he spent far more time thinking
about quantum theory than he did about relativity. But he never
found a theory o f quantum physics that satisfied him.
There are by now only a small minority of physicists who think
Einstein was right to reject quantum theory as the foundation of
our scientific description of nature. No theory has been more
successful at explaining a vast array of experimental data.
It is the basis for our understanding of virtually all of physics,
with the possible exception of gravity and cosmology.
Einstein was willing to concede that quantum mechanics explains
the recorded behavior of the subatomic world, but he was convinced
it had two flaws. First, it fails to give precise predictions for
the outcomes of individual processes. Instead, it gives only
statistical predictions. To check them, one must do an experiment
many times and compare the resulting distributions of outcomes
with the predictions. Second, quantum theory fails to give an
objective picture of the world that is unconnected to our role as
observers. The formulas of quantum theory correspond to our
actions in preparing experiments and measuring their outcomes.
Einstein objected to this because he believed strongly that
physics should provide a picture of nature "as it is in itself."
After 1930, virtually all of Einstein's colleagues were certain
that the revolution was over and that physics was nearly complete.
Nearly alone in his stance, Einstein saw the quantum as only a
stepping stone to the real thing, which he continued to search for
all the rest of his life.
Quantum Mechanics was not the only theory that bothered Einstein.
Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own
theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's
insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on
relative motion and that the speed of light therefore must always
be the same, no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among
the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are
equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc^2) and that time
and distance are relative, not absolute. 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.
He rejected his own theory, even before most physicists had come
to accept it, for reasons that only he cared about. For another 10
years, as others in the world of physics slowly absorbed special
relativity, Einstein pursued a lonely patb away from it.
Why? The main reason was that he wanted to extend relativity to
include all observers, whereas his special theory postulates only
an equivalence among a limited class of observers-those who aren't
accelerating. A second reason was his concern with incorporating
gravity, making use of what he called the equivalence principle,
which postulates that observers can never distinguish the effects
of gravity from those of acceleration as long as they observe
phenomena only in their neighborhood. By this principle, he linked
the problem of gravity with the problem of extending relativity to
all observers.
Einstein was the only one who worried about these two problems.
Meanwhile, other physicists came up with ways to incorporate
gravitational phenomena directly into special relativity. This was
the reasonable thing to do, for they were builddirectly on the
success of the new theEinstein had invented. And they succeeded in
making the theory consist. Moreover, their extensions of special
relativity agreed with all the experiments that had been done. So
why did Einstein reject it? His reason was that his colleag ues'
approach - folding descriptions of gravity into special relativity
rather than craft a whole new theory-disagreed with equivalence
principle. He understood My that there was a key experiment could
distinguish between the incremental approach of the other
physicists his own radical approach. This was to sure the bending
of light by the sun's gravity, an effect predicted by the
equivalence principle. A reasonable person might waited to see how
the exper iment out, and indeed, an opportunity to he theory c ame
in 1919, By that time, Einstein had invented his second theory of
relativity, which he called general relativity. The experiment
appeared to confirm the new theory's predictions. The result was
announced on the front pages of the world's newspapers, making
Einstein the first scientist to be a media star.
General relativity is the most radical and challenging of
Einstein's discoveries-so much so that I believe the majority of
physicists, even theoretical physicists, have yet to fully
incorporate it into their thinking. The flashy stuff, like black
holes, gravitational waves, the expanding universe, and the Big
Bang are, it turns out, the easy parts of general relativity. The
theory goes much deeper: It demands a radical change in how we
think of space and time.
All previous theories said that space and time have a fixed
structure and that it is this structure that gives rise to the
properties of things in the world, by giving every object a place
and every event a time. In the transition from Aristotle to Newton
to Einstein and special relativity, that structure changed, but in
each case the structure is absolute. We and every thing we observe
live in a set space-time, with fixed and unchanging properties,
That is the stage on which we play, but nothing we do or c ould do
affects the structure of space and time themselves.
General relativity is not about adding to those structures. It is
not even about substituting those structures for a list of
possible new structures. It rejects the whole idea that space and
time are fixed at all. Instead, in general relativity the
properties of space and time evolve dynamically, in interaction
with everything they contain. Furthermore, the essence of space
and time now is just a set of relationships between events that
take place in the history of the world. It is sufficient, it turns
out, to speak only of two kinds of relationships: how events are
related to each other causally (the order in which they unfold)
and how many events are contained within a given interval of time,
measured by a standard clock (how quickly they unfold relative to
each other).
Thus, in general relativity there is no fixed framework, no stage
on which the world plays itself out. There is only an evolving
network of relationships, making up the history of space, time,
and matter. All the previous theories described space and time as
fixed backgrounds on which things happen. The implication of
general relativity is that there is no background.
This point is subtle and elusive. I was very fortunate to know the
great astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar during his last
years. Chandra, as we called him, demonstrated in 1930 that
relativity implied that stars above a certain mass would collapse
into what we now call a black hole. Much later, he wrote a
beautiful book describing the different solutions of the equations
of general relativity that describe black holes. As I got to know
him, Chandra shocked me by speaking of a deep anger toward Eins
tein. Chandra was upset that Einstein, after inventing general
relativity, had abandoned this masterpiece, leaving it to others
to struggle through it.
I now believe that Chandra partly missed the point, and he is
certainly not alone. The deepest implication of general relativity
is not that the universe may expand or that there are black holes.
To think this way is to believe that general relativity is just
another step in the progression from Aristotle to Newton to
special relativity. Chandra, in his interest in the solutions of
the theory, was, I fear, acting like so many others - reaching for
a beautiful flower but missing the beauty of how it is that
flowers come to be.
Chandra was right that in spite of the great triumph general
relativity represented, Einstein did not linger long over it. For
Einstein, quantum physics was the essential mystery, and nothing
could be really fundamental that was not part of the solution to
that problem. Because general relativity didn't explain quantum
theory, it had to be provisional as well. It could only be a step
toward Einstein's goal, which was to find a theory of quantum
phenomena that would agree with all the experiments and satisfy
his demand for clarity and completeness.
Einstein imagined for a time that such a theory could come from an
extension of general relativity. Thus he entered into the final
period of his scientific life, his search for a unified field
theory. He sought an extension of general relativity that would
incorporate electromagnetism, thereby wedding the large-scale
world, where gravity dominates, with the small-scale world of
quantum physics. He tried a variety of means, such as adding new
dimensions of space-time or loosening somewhat the mathematical st
ructure of general relativity. The irony is that some of these
gambits worked, but they still led nowhere. For it turns out that
unified theories are a dime a dozen. There are many ways to
generalize general relativity so as to incorporate the laws of
electromagnetism. Nor is it much harder, as has been done
recently, to extend the theory a bit further to incorporate the
nuclear forces, and so have a unified theory of all the forces.
indeed, the number of such unified theories keeps increasing.
Recent estimates based on results from string theory indicate
there are more than 10"' distinct unified field theories. Thus, it
is as unclear now as it was for Einstein whether pursuing a
unified field theory will lead to real progress in understanding
nature.
One way to understand this story is to say that theoretical
physics has finally caught up to Einstein. While he was shunned in
his Princeton years as he pursued the unified field theory, the
Institute for Advanced Study, where he worked, is now filled with
theorists who search for new variants of unified field theories.
It is indeed a vindication of sorts for Einstein because much of
what today's string theorists do in practice is play with unified
theories of the kinds that Einstein and his few colleagues
invented.
The problem with this picture is that by the end of his life
Einstein had to some extent abandoned his search for a unified
field theory. He had failed to find a version of the theory that
did what was most important to him, which is to explain quantum
phenomena in a way that involved neither measurements nor
statistics. In his last years he was moving on to something even
more radical. He proposed giving up the idea that space and time
are continuous. It is fair to say that while the idea that matter
is ma de of atoms goes back at least to the Greeks, few before
Einstein questioned the smoothness and continuity of space and
time. To one friend, Walter DallenbAch, he wrote, "The problem
seems to me how one can formulate statements about a discontinuum
without calling on a continuum as an aid; the latter should be
banned from the theory as a supplementary construction not
justified by the essence of the problem, which corresponds to
nothing 'real."'
However, Einstein made no progress with this new direction. He
complained that "we still lack the mathematical structure,
unfortunately," To another friend, H. S. Joachim, he wrote: "It
would be especially difficult to derive something Eke a
spatiotemporal quasiorder from such a schema. I cannot imagine how
the axiomatic framework of such a physics would appear, and I
don't like it when one talks about it in dark apostrophes. But I
hold it entirely possible that the development will lead there.'
SO WHAT IS EINSTEIN'S REAL LEGACY? Are any of us his followers? In
this centennial year, there will be many who claim the mantle.
That includes the community of relativists, but most of them
rarely look beyond the theory. Instead they study it by finding
solutions on computers or by looking for gravity waves. There are
also a few physicists who follow Einstein in rejecting quantum
theory and in searching for an alternative. Einstein would have
been happy that some scientists agree with him, but he would mos t
likely have been critical that much of the work in that area
ignores the problem of unification.
Some string theorists will claim to be Einsteinians, and certainly
Einstein would have approved of their search for a unification of
physics. But here is how Brian Greene in his most recent book, The
Fabric of the Cosmos, describes the state of the field: "Even
today, more than three decades after its initial articulation,
most string practitioners believe we still don't have a
comprehensive answer to the rudimentary question, What is string
theory? Most researchers feel that our current formulation of stri
ng theory still lacks the kind of core principle we find at the
heart of other major advances."
Einstein's whole life was a search for a theory of principles. It
is hard to imagine he would have sustained interest in a theory
for which, after more than 30 years of intensive investigation, no
one is able to put forward any core principles.
He may in this regard have been happier with approaches to quantum
gravity that stay closer to the core principles of relativity. For
example, loop quantum gravity preserves his discovery that space
and time have no fixed background, and it also provides an answer
to Einstein's questions of how to go beyond the continuum. But
Einstein would have found unacceptable all approaches to quantum
gravity, including string theory and loop quantum gravity, that
take quantum mechanics as fundamental. Einstein never w avered in
his rejection of quantum mechanics. His motive for making a
unified field theory was not to extend the domain of quantum
mechanics; it was rather to find an alternative to quantum
mechanics. No research program that accepts quantum mechanics as a
given can count itself to be within Einstein's legacy.
I think a sober assessment is that up till now, almost all of us
who work in theoretical physics have failed to live up to
Einstein's legacy. His demand for a coherent theory of principle
was uncompromising. It has not been reached-not by quantum theory,
not by special or general relativity, not by anything invented
since. Einstein's moral clarity, his insistence that we should
accept nothing less than a theory that gives a completely coherent
account of individual phenomena, cannot be followed unless we re
ject almost all contemporary theoretical physics as insufficient.
So is it possible to follow the path of Einstein? To do so, you
cannot be a crank; you must be a well-trained physicist, literate
in current theories and aware of their limitations. And you must
insist on absolute clarity in your own work, rather than follow
any fad or popular direction. Given the pressures of competition
for academic positions, to follow Einstein's path is to risk the
price that he paid: unemployment in spite of abundant talent and
skill at the craft of theoretical physics.
In my whole career as a theoretical physicist, I have known only a
handful of colleagues who truly can be said to follow Einstein's
path. They are driven, as Einstein was, by a moral need for clear
understanding. In everything they do, these few strive continually
to invent a new theory of principle that could satisfy the
strictest demands of coherence and consistency, without regard to
fashion or the professional consequences. Most have paid for their
independence, in a harder career path than equally tale nted
scientists who follow the research agendas of the big professors.
LET US BE FRANK AND ADMIT THAT MOST OF US have neither the courage
nor the patience to emulate Einstein. We should instead honor
Einstein by asking whether we can do anything to ensure that in
the future those few who do follow Einstein's path, who approach
science as uncompromisingly as he did, have less risk of
unemployment, the sort he suffered at the beginning of his career,
and less risk of the marginalization he endured at the end. If we
can do this, if we can make the path easier for those few who do
follow him, we may make possible a revolution in science that even
Einstein failed to achieve. El
"It is not the result of scientific research that ennobles humans
and enriches their nature," said Einstein (in Berlin in 1930),
"but the struggle to understand while performing creative and
open-minded intellectual work."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Posdebit" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
18 Jan 2005 06:56:53 PM |
|
|
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106088251.279295.39580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Harry Hakenkreuz wrote:
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106054440.497066.158230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I saw this nice looking magazine lying around and read
it and finally understood about Einstein and why there
are so many cranks now and what made cranks.
The magazine is the September 2004 issue of Discover
Magazine
Journalist = someone who writes about something he knows nothing
about, for
others.
Hold it right there. The author of the article is Lee Smolin, a
theoretical physicist who wrote the books "The Life of the Cosmos"
and "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity".
The following is the complete article. Critics welcomed.
Too general, and too many flaws to try to reply.
Written for the general public without any physics knowledge above 7th
grade.
One example;
"Einstein's discovery of special relativity came from 10 years of
meditation on how to reconcile the relativity of motion with James
Clerk Maxwells theory of electromagnetism, which describes the
propagation of light"
Is just flat-out wrong. It was Michelson & Morely experiment results that
started the SR thing, not Maxwell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
19 Jan 2005 11:46:11 AM |
|
|
"Posdebit" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:355phpF4i6mgoU1@individual.net...
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106088251.279295.39580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Harry Hakenkreuz wrote:
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106054440.497066.158230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I saw this nice looking magazine lying around and read
it and finally understood about Einstein and why there
are so many cranks now and what made cranks.
The magazine is the September 2004 issue of Discover
Magazine
Journalist = someone who writes about something he knows nothing
about, for
others.
Hold it right there. The author of the article is Lee Smolin, a
theoretical physicist who wrote the books "The Life of the Cosmos"
and "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity".
The following is the complete article. Critics welcomed.
Too general, and too many flaws to try to reply.
Written for the general public without any physics knowledge above
7th
grade.
One example;
"Einstein's discovery of special relativity came from 10 years of
meditation on how to reconcile the relativity of motion with James
Clerk Maxwells theory of electromagnetism, which describes the
propagation of light"
Is just flat-out wrong. It was Michelson & Morely experiment
results that
started the SR thing, not Maxwell.
Twaddle. Maxwell's equations had been found not to obey Galilean
relativity.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
18 Jan 2005 07:38:11 PM |
|
|
In article <355phpF4i6mgoU1@individual.net>,
Posdebit <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106088251.279295.39580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Harry Hakenkreuz wrote:
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106054440.497066.158230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I saw this nice looking magazine lying around and read
it and finally understood about Einstein and why there
are so many cranks now and what made cranks.
The magazine is the September 2004 issue of Discover
Magazine
Journalist = someone who writes about something he knows nothing
about, for
others.
Hold it right there. The author of the article is Lee Smolin, a
theoretical physicist who wrote the books "The Life of the Cosmos"
and "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity".
The following is the complete article. Critics welcomed.
Too general, and too many flaws to try to reply.
Written for the general public without any physics knowledge above 7th
grade.
One example;
"Einstein's discovery of special relativity came from 10 years of
meditation on how to reconcile the relativity of motion with James
Clerk Maxwells theory of electromagnetism, which describes the
propagation of light"
Is just flat-out wrong. It was Michelson & Morely experiment results that
started the SR thing, not Maxwell.
In the first paragraph of his 1905 paper Einstein remarks on the
electrical current generated by moving a magnet relative to a conductor,
although it doesn't matter which one is stationary and which one moves.
Second paragraph starts with "Examples of this sort, together with the
unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to
the 'light medium'..."
--
"You're not as dumb as you look. Or sound. Or our best testing
indicates." -- Monty Burns to Homer Simpson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Landle" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
19 Jan 2005 03:34:17 AM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Is just flat-out wrong. It was Michelson & Morely experiment
results that
started the SR thing, not Maxwell.
In the first paragraph of his 1905 paper Einstein remarks on the
electrical current generated by moving a magnet relative to a
conductor,
although it doesn't matter which one is stationary and which one
moves.
Second paragraph starts with "Examples of this sort, together with
the
unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively
to
the 'light medium'..."
--
"You're not as dumb as you look. Or sound. Or our best testing
indicates." -- Monty Burns to Homer Simpson
What if Einstein chose the path of Lorentz Ether Theory. Instead
of giving special relativity status to light beam... he can give it
to the ether which as Lorentz show can produce the same effect
(as well as explain Michelson and Morely null result).
What if Einstein published the Special Ether Relativity Theory.
Then instead of Quantum Mechanics. We would have Aether Mechanics.
Instead of Quantum Field Theory. We would have Aether Field Theory.
Instead of Quantum Chromodynamics. We would have Aether
Chromodynamics. Look. Many theories can be derived or developed
in different ways. Instead of particles producing virtual
particles which cause attraction and repulsion. One can develope
the math to show how attraction and repulsion are caused by
Aether dynamics and movement (an example.. Thomson math).
Had the Aether Physics concepts got developed at the start of
the century. It could have led to more fruitful researches and
questions. The answers of which can change humanity forever.
Aether Physics can give the mechanisms for telepathy,
clairvoyancy, etc... stuff mainstream physicists attributed
to crackpots because their model couldn't support it. This
says a lot that their model is not the right or complete one.
It can explain compton scattering, etc. but it can't explain
other phenomena. A right theory and a correct one should be
able to explain all.
If there are scientists here who don't believe in telepathy
or clairvoyancy. All I can do is laugh. There is still hope
though. Try to broaden your mind. Study the CIA, etc. researches
and experiments on it. If you want direct demonstration, just
make your eyes open wider.
Landle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
19 Jan 2005 11:31:36 AM |
|
|
In article <1106127257.021554.29720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Landle <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Is just flat-out wrong. It was Michelson & Morely experiment
results that
started the SR thing, not Maxwell.
In the first paragraph of his 1905 paper Einstein remarks on the
electrical current generated by moving a magnet relative to a
conductor,
although it doesn't matter which one is stationary and which one
moves.
Second paragraph starts with "Examples of this sort, together with
the
unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively
to
the 'light medium'..."
--
"You're not as dumb as you look. Or sound. Or our best testing
indicates." -- Monty Burns to Homer Simpson
What if Einstein chose the path of Lorentz Ether Theory. Instead
of giving special relativity status to light beam... he can give it
to the ether which as Lorentz show can produce the same effect
(as well as explain Michelson and Morely null result).
What if Einstein published the Special Ether Relativity Theory.
Then instead of Quantum Mechanics. We would have Aether Mechanics.
Einstein didn't have to, Lorentz already had a year earlier.
Despite the credit that's due Einstein, you're overestimating the
influence of a single person on the progress of science. He wrote the
article in 1905, but the scientific community thought it was a good idea.
Einstein wasn't the first to notice a principle of relativity, and
higher-dimensional and non-Euclidean geometries were quite popular at the
time. And it was noticed that it's not necessary to know the rest frame
to calculate observable things in Lorentz's theory. I think something
like the special theory would have been developed sooner or later even
without Einstein.
Instead of Quantum Field Theory. We would have Aether Field Theory.
Instead of Quantum Chromodynamics. We would have Aether
Chromodynamics. Look. Many theories can be derived or developed
Not really. Lorentz's aether theory is specifically a theory of
electromagnetism. It has its own length contraction, which was accounted
for by the shrinking of electrons in the direction of aether flow. In
itself, it says nothing about the strong and weak nuclear forces, or
gravity. An aether theory would have to be extended each time a new force
is added, while relativity makes some broad claims about any real or
imagined force that can exist.
in different ways. Instead of particles producing virtual
particles which cause attraction and repulsion. One can develope
the math to show how attraction and repulsion are caused by
Aether dynamics and movement (an example.. Thomson math).
Had the Aether Physics concepts got developed at the start of
the century. It could have led to more fruitful researches and
questions. The answers of which can change humanity forever.
Aether physics had been in development for at least 250 years by that
time. Aethers featured prominently in Descartes' theories, and the
concept of the aether stretches back to the ancient Greeks. The history
of science in the past few hundred years has seen the role of the aether
in theoretical physics steadily dwindling for lack of useful application.
Aether Physics can give the mechanisms for telepathy,
clairvoyancy, etc... stuff mainstream physicists attributed
to crackpots because their model couldn't support it. This
says a lot that their model is not the right or complete one.
It can explain compton scattering, etc. but it can't explain
other phenomena. A right theory and a correct one should be
able to explain all.
If there are scientists here who don't believe in telepathy
or clairvoyancy. All I can do is laugh. There is still hope
though. Try to broaden your mind. Study the CIA, etc. researches
and experiments on it. If you want direct demonstration, just
make your eyes open wider.
I'd spent a fair amount of time studying the professional literature of
parapsychology, and I didn't see anything that proves the point as soundly
as you think it has been proven.
--
"Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of
Congress... But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
19 Jan 2005 12:07:31 PM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
I'd spent a fair amount of time studying the professional literature of
parapsychology, and I didn't see anything that proves the point as soundly
as you think it has been proven.
Every parapsychological "phenomenon" has been reproduced perfectly by
James (the Amazing) Randi who says what he does is pure trickery. Given
two explantions for seeming occult phenomena, one involving non-physical
causes and the other by a magicians tricks, which explanation would a
reasonable person prefer. Ocam's Razor wins again.
There is not a single "parapsychological" phemomenon that has been
empircally proven. Not one. People who believe in that stuff are either
fools or mystics.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
19 Jan 2005 12:22:24 PM |
|
|
In article <357lv4F4hkh3oU1@individual.net>,
robert j. kolker <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
I'd spent a fair amount of time studying the professional literature of
parapsychology, and I didn't see anything that proves the point as soundly
as you think it has been proven.
Every parapsychological "phenomenon" has been reproduced perfectly by
James (the Amazing) Randi who says what he does is pure trickery.
I once watched Teller create the illusion of lighting a cigarette.
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Landle" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
19 Jan 2005 03:41:52 PM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Had the Aether Physics concepts got developed at the start of
the century. It could have led to more fruitful researches and
questions. The answers of which can change humanity forever.
Aether physics had been in development for at least 250 years by that
time. Aethers featured prominently in Descartes' theories, and the
concept of the aether stretches back to the ancient Greeks. The
history
of science in the past few hundred years has seen the role of the
aether
in theoretical physics steadily dwindling for lack of useful
application.
Lack of useful application?? Gee. Have they looked deep enough??
There are many things going on in the world... ESP, ghost, UFOs
and other "fringe" stuff. Mainstream physics ignore them because
their Standard Model doesn't support it. What if... that is, what
if the Standard Model doesn't truly represent reality or incomplete?
Then you guys are making a big mistake. This is the reason many
physicists like Fred Alan Wolf, Jack Sarfatti, Bearden, etc. went
on their own. However, because you are dealing with the entire
foundation of science. You can't expect them to give you the
right theory on their own. It's logical they make mistakes.. so
are David Thomson, Seto, etc. They are bound to make mistakes
because you can't expect one single person to give the entire
theoretical foundation of the new physics based on Aether. You
said Aether theory has to be extended every time a new force is
added. So what. For example David Thomson has the mechanism by
which the 4 fundamental forces are created from the dynamics of
the Aether. But then again, you can't expect one person to hit
it right and giving a precise physics of all. Not even a genius
can do that. It has to be the united effort of all physicists and
scientists in different generations.
I'd spent a fair amount of time studying the professional literature
of
parapsychology, and I didn't see anything that proves the point as
soundly
as you think it has been proven.
Have you looked at the right places. As demonstration. If you can
send a hair sample to someone and then you suddenly become sick
for one year with no known cure as a result of non-local quantum
sorcery. Would you be convinced? Of course this is not advisable
but if one merely looked for subtle proof, it is not easy to be
convinced short of directly effect on you. I am sure they exist
from many things I encounter personality, etc. and I'm
looking for the physics that can explain them. But then, I just
want to have a rough understanding of it.. because it seems that
there is a reason to suppress the real physics of the aether
because of the danger it can post to humanity in terms of new
principles and new ways of developing weapons of mass destruction.
Also the financial infrastructure of the world is build on current
physics foundation. If you introduce a new principle, world market
collapse can occur for example from oil suddenly being faced
out by free energy, etc. Therefore I tend to be more comfortable
with the incomplete Standard Model and just want to have a
rough idea of what is the real physics that lurk underneath
everything. In time humanity would discover the precise principles
and they would be introduced to society slowly and there would
not be massive bad impact from financial, psychological and
culture shock. Sometimes I am glad Bearden, Thomson, Seto, etc.
didn't get it completely right and physicists just laught at them...
for now.
Landle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
19 Jan 2005 04:25:30 PM |
|
|
In article <1106170912.438063.36520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Landle <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Had the Aether Physics concepts got developed at the start of
the century. It could have led to more fruitful researches and
questions. The answers of which can change humanity forever.
Aether physics had been in development for at least 250 years by that
time. Aethers featured prominently in Descartes' theories, and the
concept of the aether stretches back to the ancient Greeks. The
history
of science in the past few hundred years has seen the role of the
aether
in theoretical physics steadily dwindling for lack of useful
application.
Lack of useful application?? Gee. Have they looked deep enough??
There are many things going on in the world... ESP, ghost, UFOs
and other "fringe" stuff. Mainstream physics ignore them because
their Standard Model doesn't support it. What if... that is, what
Mainstream physics ignores that stuff, but that has nothing whatsoever to
do with what the Standard Model does and doesn't support. Heck,
mainstream physics has a strong interest in gravity, and the Standard
Model doesn't cover that at all! And it's little more than an assumption
that the behavioral sciences can in principle be reduced to quantum
electrodynamics. Supposing those phenomena needed an explanation from
physics, I don't know why you think it's so obvious that aether theories
could provide it when other theories couldn't. E.g. Lorentz's aether
theory can basically make an exact stand-in for relativity in the theory
of electromagnetism, but that means it can't do anything that relativity
can't! New Agers usually seem to find such comfort in quantum
entanglement and that sort of thing.
if the Standard Model doesn't truly represent reality or incomplete?
Then you guys are making a big mistake. This is the reason many
physicists like Fred Alan Wolf, Jack Sarfatti, Bearden, etc. went
on their own. However, because you are dealing with the entire
foundation of science. You can't expect them to give you the
right theory on their own. It's logical they make mistakes.. so
are David Thomson, Seto, etc. They are bound to make mistakes
because you can't expect one single person to give the entire
theoretical foundation of the new physics based on Aether. You
said Aether theory has to be extended every time a new force is
added. So what. For example David Thomson has the mechanism by
which the 4 fundamental forces are created from the dynamics of
the Aether. But then again, you can't expect one person to hit
it right and giving a precise physics of all. Not even a genius
can do that. It has to be the united effort of all physicists and
scientists in different generations.
I'd spent a fair amount of time studying the professional literature
of
parapsychology, and I didn't see anything that proves the point as
soundly
as you think it has been proven.
Have you looked at the right places. As demonstration. If you can
send a hair sample to someone and then you suddenly become sick
for one year with no known cure as a result of non-local quantum
sorcery. Would you be convinced? Of course this is not advisable
What if I became sick for one year with no known cure, but it wasn't
quantum sorcery? Why does the sorcery have to be quantum?
The problem with anecdotal tales like that is it's so hard to quantify, so
hard to demonstrate a cause-effect relationship. Some people see a face
on Mars, I saw a face on a rock by the playground, so what. The mainstay
of parapsychology is controlled experiments where volunteers are asked to
guess or influence random things, and even when significant results are
found it has to run through the statistics before you know they're
significant. Uncle Al has pointed out more than once that casinos make
money.
but if one merely looked for subtle proof, it is not easy to be
convinced short of directly effect on you. I am sure they exist
from many things I encounter personality, etc. and I'm
looking for the physics that can explain them. But then, I just
want to have a rough understanding of it.. because it seems that
there is a reason to suppress the real physics of the aether
because of the danger it can post to humanity in terms of new
principles and new ways of developing weapons of mass destruction.
Also the financial infrastructure of the world is build on current
physics foundation. If you introduce a new principle, world market
collapse can occur for example from oil suddenly being faced
out by free energy, etc. Therefore I tend to be more comfortable
You're making some bold claims for a theory that doesn't exist yet.
Until all physicists and scientists in different generations unite to
develop the theory, how can you know so much about what it will turn in
to?
--
"You're not as dumb as you look. Or sound. Or our best testing
indicates." -- Monty Burns to Homer Simpson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Landle" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
19 Jan 2005 06:19:01 PM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Lack of useful application?? Gee. Have they looked deep enough??
There are many things going on in the world... ESP, ghost, UFOs
and other "fringe" stuff. Mainstream physics ignore them because
their Standard Model doesn't support it. What if... that is, what
Mainstream physics ignores that stuff, but that has nothing
whatsoever to
do with what the Standard Model does and doesn't support. Heck,
mainstream physics has a strong interest in gravity, and the Standard
Model doesn't cover that at all! And it's little more than an
assumption
that the behavioral sciences can in principle be reduced to quantum
electrodynamics. Supposing those phenomena needed an explanation
from
physics, I don't know why you think it's so obvious that aether
theories
could provide it when other theories couldn't. E.g. Lorentz's aether
theory can basically make an exact stand-in for relativity in the
theory
of electromagnetism, but that means it can't do anything that
relativity
can't! New Agers usually seem to find such comfort in quantum
entanglement and that sort of thing.
Because quantum entanglement is the only mechanism available
in mainstream theories that can "explain" telepathy, claivoyancy,
remote viewing, etc. So they used it. Even Jack Sarfatti used it.
But because it is so limited in scope, not much can be produced
at lab, this is why you have the techno bubbles from different
researchers such as Sarfatti using "Quantum Tsunami", etc. This
can further divide the field and just create confusion & animosity.
However, is it possible this is occuring because there is no
allowed mechanisms for them in Quantum Theory... only quantum
entanglement that has mechanism to explain it. If we use the
Aether model, there are many ways they can be explained that is
even demonstrable at the lab. Seto and Thomson Aether
hypotheses both can explain telepathy, clairvoyants and the
best thing is that the properties of the Aether can be studied
and predictions made on to be performed experiments. Get it?
Aether theories have more degree of freedom for other effects
that quantum mechanics doesn't. This is because quantum
physics stop right there at the mathematics and assume there
there is no objective reality in quantum reality. So physicists
are forced or reared to get used to contradiction... that
mathematics and probabilities are what they represent and you
can't know the objective reality. This is what Einstein hated
and what made him said God didn't play dice with the universe.
This is why I find it so limited if I'd use the foundation of
Quantum Physics to explain the true reality that physicists
mostly ignored. This is what made me attracted to the Aether.
Because in Aether stuff, you go behind the scene in QM. You
take it apart and remodel it with the result that it can
explain more of reality in addition to all the scientific data.
Aether study is really at its infancy and most investigators
are bound to make mistakes during initial scrutiny. For
instance. Seto and Thomson. They are bound to make mistakes
even complete mistakes because you can't expect the entire
physics framework to be developed by one person, that's what
they are doing. Worse, they are in some kind of competition
and don't want to listen to another one's stuff. So they are in
some kind of virtual segregations.
You're making some bold claims for a theory that doesn't exist yet.
Until all physicists and scientists in different generations unite to
develop the theory, how can you know so much about what it will turn
in
to?
Right now. I am deciding and choosing between M-Theory and Aether
theories. But M-theory is just in the infancy. Who knows. Later
it can accomodate the Aether too. M-Theory is not moving much
because it doesn't ask the right questions or don't know what
to ask. I think the final reality may be combination of M-Theory
and Aether Theory as only these can explain the real data in
the paranormal that physicists ignore at every turn without
serious investigations just because their colleague said so. It
is when scientists would be tasked to explain all paranormal
phenomena that they can finally see what's missing in M-Theory
or what's variables to plug there. You see. Without accomodating
paranormal phenomena, no Theory of Everything would be made
because Theory of Everything must accomodate these paranormal
stuff. Some physicists who investigated them and have personal
experiences such as Fred Alan Wolf, Tiller, Bearden, Sarfatii,
etc. saw it obvious that there is a need for a new model.
And to get Nobel Prize and recognitions, they wanted to discover
the mechanisms by themselves single handedly. In the midst of
their investigations, they created their own "terms", "concepts"
etc. which made mainstream physics avoid them. This is what is
going on. Perhaps in the next generation with the present kids
becoming full grown scientists and accomodating other concepts can
science slowly accept and study these phenomena. It is then and
only then that the Theory of Everything can finally be discovered.
When it does. Humanity will be changed forever and a new chapter
in the history of earth will begin.
Landle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
18 Jan 2005 07:17:45 PM |
|
|
In article <355phpF4i6mgoU1@individual.net>, "Posdebit" <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106088251.279295.39580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Harry Hakenkreuz wrote:
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106054440.497066.158230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I saw this nice looking magazine lying around and read
it and finally understood about Einstein and why there
are so many cranks now and what made cranks.
The magazine is the September 2004 issue of Discover
Magazine
Journalist = someone who writes about something he knows nothing
about, for
others.
Hold it right there. The author of the article is Lee Smolin, a
theoretical physicist who wrote the books "The Life of the Cosmos"
and "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity".
The following is the complete article. Critics welcomed.
Too general, and too many flaws to try to reply.
Written for the general public without any physics knowledge above 7th
grade.
One example;
"Einstein's discovery of special relativity came from 10 years of
meditation on how to reconcile the relativity of motion with James
Clerk Maxwells theory of electromagnetism, which describes the
propagation of light"
Is just flat-out wrong. It was Michelson & Morely experiment results that
started the SR thing, not Maxwell.
Nope. What started the ball rolling was Maxwell, more precisely the
fact that Maxwell's equations are not Galilean -invariant. That
presented two possibilities. It was either
1) Maxwell's equations are not universally correct, at most correct
only in one preferred reference frame (aka the aether)
or
2) The Galilean group is *not* the correct transformation group, for
transformations between reference frames.
Initially physicists believed that (1) is true but, belief or not,
they set out to check, experimentally what's happening. Michelson and
Moreley's was but one of a multitude of experiments performed at that
time to resolve the issue (did you think that M&M just spent few years
on this experiment based on "hey, we have some bits and pieces, lets
put them together and measure something":-)). Thus, obviously, it
couldn't have been what set the ball rolling since it was the fact
that the ball was already rolling that prompted the experiment.
Moreover, again, *it was just one of a multitude of various
measurement* and it was the combined impact of all those measurements
that poited to SR, not any of them alone. The exalted view (found
mainly in "popular" sources) of this experiment alone being the
foundation for relativity has nothing to do with reality.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Posdebit" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
18 Jan 2005 07:33:17 PM |
|
|
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:ZyiHd.5$55.1459@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <355phpF4i6mgoU1@individual.net>, "Posdebit"
<nospam@nospam.com> writes:
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106088251.279295.39580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Harry Hakenkreuz wrote:
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106054440.497066.158230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I saw this nice looking magazine lying around and read
it and finally understood about Einstein and why there
are so many cranks now and what made cranks.
The magazine is the September 2004 issue of Discover
Magazine
Journalist = someone who writes about something he knows nothing
about, for
others.
Hold it right there. The author of the article is Lee Smolin, a
theoretical physicist who wrote the books "The Life of the Cosmos"
and "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity".
The following is the complete article. Critics welcomed.
Too general, and too many flaws to try to reply.
Written for the general public without any physics knowledge above 7th
grade.
One example;
"Einstein's discovery of special relativity came from 10 years of
meditation on how to reconcile the relativity of motion with James
Clerk Maxwells theory of electromagnetism, which describes the
propagation of light"
Is just flat-out wrong. It was Michelson & Morely experiment results
that
started the SR thing, not Maxwell.
Nope. What started the ball rolling was Maxwell, more precisely the
fact that Maxwell's equations are not Galilean -invariant. That
presented two possibilities. It was either
1) Maxwell's equations are not universally correct, at most correct
only in one preferred reference frame (aka the aether)
or
2) The Galilean group is *not* the correct transformation group, for
transformations between reference frames.
Initially physicists believed that (1) is true but, belief or not,
they set out to check, experimentally what's happening. Michelson and
Moreley's was but one of a multitude of experiments performed at that
time to resolve the issue (did you think that M&M just spent few years
on this experiment based on "hey, we have some bits and pieces, lets
put them together and measure something":-)). Thus, obviously, it
couldn't have been what set the ball rolling since it was the fact
that the ball was already rolling that prompted the experiment.
Moreover, again, *it was just one of a multitude of various
measurement* and it was the combined impact of all those measurements
that poited to SR, not any of them alone. The exalted view (found
mainly in "popular" sources) of this experiment alone being the
foundation for relativity has nothing to do with reality.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
dang them popular sources.........
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
18 Jan 2005 07:50:11 PM |
|
|
Maxwell's equations
div D = rho; div B = 0
curl H - dD/dt = J; curl E + dB/dt = 0
are INDEED Galilean invariant ... and Poincare invariant, and Euclidean
invariant, and conformally invariant, and in fact diffeomorphically
invariant. The invariance group, in fact, is the whole damned shebang:
GL(4) and even more than that: S(GL(4) x GL(2)).
What's not invariant are the constitutive relations
D = epsilon_0 E; B = mu_0 H.
The Galilean invariant version would read:
D = epsilon_0 (E - v x B); B = mu_0 (D + v x H)
where v is the velocity relative to the frame in which the first
version holds. Indeed, that WAS the form Maxwell posed (at least the
first equation) in his treatise, when rendered in modern notation.
It's the constitutive relations that encode the spacetime structure.
That has consequences. In particular, near a point source, rho goes
singular, and therefore D too. In order for the force law (F = rho E +
J x B) to be well-defined, this implies that E must be regular at that
point, which implies that (D = epsilon_0 E) CAN NOT HOLD in the
vicinity of the source (or else, that the source is not regular, in
which case the relations you have a non-trivial microscopic
distribution, in which case the relations need not hold there either).
So the question of the validity of relativity, itself, and its
applicability at the tiniest scales (e.g. Planck scale or somewhere
between it and the Compton scale) itself comes back. The light cone
may not be sharply defined once you get close enough to sources; and
causality may not be valid at small enough scales.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
18 Jan 2005 11:56:51 AM |
|
|
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106054440.497066.158230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I saw this nice looking magazine lying around and read
it and finally understood about Einstein and why there
are so many cranks now and what made cranks.
The magazine is the September 2004 issue of Discover
Magazine with the cover "Special Einstein Issue: 100
Years of Genius without LImit".
Inside is an article about how Einstein hated Quantum
Mechanics. Some direct quotes read "Einstein never
wavered in his rejection of quantum mechanics. HIs
motive for making a unified field theory was not to
extend the domain of quantum mechanics; it was
rather to find an alternative to quantum mechanics.
No research program that accepts quantum mechanics
as a given can count itself to be within Einstein's legacy."
That was the usual bollocks the ignorami of this world spout about
Einstein..
Einstein got his Nobel prize for his work on discovering the quantum
nature of the photon.
Have they never heard of the Einstein A and B coefficients for
calculating spaectral line strengths?
Have they never heard of who produced the quantum theory of stimulated
emission?
Do they not realise that QED is a theory which is based on the twin
towers of Relativity and Quantum theory?
Do they not ralise that Einstein was not alone in having severe doubts
about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory?
Some parts read:
"There are by now only a minority of physicists who
think Einstein was right to reject quantum theory as
the foundation of our scientific description of nature.
No theory has been more successful at explaining a
vast array of experimental data. It is the basis of our
understanding of virtually all of physics, with the
possible exception of gravity and cosmology. Einstein
was willing to concede that quantum mechanics
explains the record behavior of the subatomic world,
but he was convinced it had two flaws. First, it fails
to give precise predictions for the outcomes of
individual processes. Instead, it gives ony statistical
predictions. To check them, one must do an experiment
many times and compare the resulting distributions of
outcomes with the predictions.
That assertion could only have been made by a dilletante.
One single event, fully analysed, proved the existence of the Omega
minus baryon.
One single event, fully analysed, proved the existence of the neutral
current weak interaction
Second, quantum
theory fails to give an objective picture of the world
that is unconnected to our role as observers.
That, too, is a grossly misused statemennt
If slow positrons are let loose into a gas, positronium will be formed
and the annihilation gammas will be produced even when all the
observers are in bed.
Those fools usually forget that the word "Observer" i this context
means simply "Equipment with detectors"
The
formulas of quantum theory correspond to our actions
in preparing experiments and measuring their outcomes.
Einstein objected to this because he believed strongly
that physics should provide a picture of nature "as it
is in itself".
After I read the article, it occurs me to that what these
folks... Thomson, Seto, Fredifixx, TomGee, Smart, etc.
are doing is following the footstep of Einstein. The
article continues:
Balls. They are ignorami whi are too big for their boots, pure and
simple. Ask any one of them to use, whatever line they plug, to
produce a numerical value for
the Lamb shift
the magnetic moment of the muon,
the opening angle between the outgoing particles in an event in which
a fast proton collides elastically with a stationary proton, when both
emerge with equal energies.
The rest of what you had to say was as much crap as the preceding
stuff, so I snipped it
Franz
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
19 Jan 2005 12:09:03 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:csjil2$go7$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
|
| "Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:1106054440.497066.158230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > I saw this nice looking magazine lying around and read
| > it and finally understood about Einstein and why there
| > are so many cranks now and what made cranks.
| >
| > The magazine is the September 2004 issue of Discover
| > Magazine with the cover "Special Einstein Issue: 100
| > Years of Genius without LImit".
| >
| > Inside is an article about how Einstein hated Quantum
| > Mechanics. Some direct quotes read "Einstein never
| > wavered in his rejection of quantum mechanics. HIs
| > motive for making a unified field theory was not to
| > extend the domain of quantum mechanics; it was
| > rather to find an alternative to quantum mechanics.
| > No research program that accepts quantum mechanics
| > as a given can count itself to be within Einstein's legacy."
|
| That was the usual bollocks the ignorami of this world spout about
| Einstein..
| Einstein got his Nobel prize for his work on discovering the quantum
| nature of the photon.
| Have they never heard of the Einstein A and B coefficients for
| calculating spaectral line strengths?
| Have they never heard of who produced the quantum theory of stimulated
| emission?
| Do they not realise that QED is a theory which is based on the twin
| towers of Relativity and Quantum theory?
| Do they not ralise that Einstein was not alone in having severe doubts
| about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory?
|
| > Some parts read:
| >
| > "There are by now only a minority of physicists who
| > think Einstein was right to reject quantum theory as
| > the foundation of our scientific description of nature.
| > No theory has been more successful at explaining a
| > vast array of experimental data. It is the basis of our
| > understanding of virtually all of physics, with the
| > possible exception of gravity and cosmology. Einstein
| > was willing to concede that quantum mechanics
| > explains the record behavior of the subatomic world,
| > but he was convinced it had two flaws. First, it fails
| > to give precise predictions for the outcomes of
| > individual processes. Instead, it gives ony statistical
| > predictions. To check them, one must do an experiment
| > many times and compare the resulting distributions of
| > outcomes with the predictions.
|
| That assertion could only have been made by a dilletante.
| One single event, fully analysed, proved the existence of the Omega
| minus baryon.
| One single event, fully analysed, proved the existence of the neutral
| current weak interaction
|
| > Second, quantum
| > theory fails to give an objective picture of the world
| > that is unconnected to our role as observers.
|
| That, too, is a grossly misused statemennt
| If slow positrons are let loose into a gas, positronium will be formed
| and the annihilation gammas will be produced even when all the
| observers are in bed.
|
| Those fools usually forget that the word "Observer" i this context
| means simply "Equipment with detectors"
|
| > The
| > formulas of quantum theory correspond to our actions
| > in preparing experiments and measuring their outcomes.
| > Einstein objected to this because he believed strongly
| > that physics should provide a picture of nature "as it
| > is in itself".
| >
| > After I read the article, it occurs me to that what these
| > folks... Thomson, Seto, Fredifixx, TomGee, Smart, etc.
| > are doing is following the footstep of Einstein. The
| > article continues:
|
| Balls. They are ignorami whi are too big for their boots, pure and
| simple. Ask any one of them to use, whatever line they plug, to
| produce a numerical value for
| the Lamb shift
| the magnetic moment of the muon,
| the opening angle between the outgoing particles in an event in which
| a fast proton collides elastically with a stationary proton, when both
| emerge with equal energies.
That is easy for me. ;-) I don't reject quantum theory at all. So for me,
the answer to your questions is the Standard Model. And I hardly think I am
following in the footsteps of Einstein. I would rather follow in the
footsteps of all the great physicists using the best parts of their ideas.
Anyone that rejects quantum theory would have to be out of their mind.
There is just too big of a mountain of physical evidence in favor of it.
But I do see somewhat of a classical-quantum duality situation. IOW, they
don't exist without the other.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
19 Jan 2005 04:15:31 PM |
|
|
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:356bkgF4gpmdsU1@individual.net...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:csjil2$go7$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
|
| "Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:1106054440.497066.158230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > I saw this nice looking magazine lying around and read
| > it and finally understood about Einstein and why there
| > are so many cranks now and what made cranks.
| >
| > The magazine is the September 2004 issue of Discover
| > Magazine with the cover "Special Einstein Issue: 100
| > Years of Genius without LImit".
| >
| > Inside is an article about how Einstein hated Quantum
| > Mechanics. Some direct quotes read "Einstein never
| > wavered in his rejection of quantum mechanics. HIs
| > motive for making a unified field theory was not to
| > extend the domain of quantum mechanics; it was
| > rather to find an alternative to quantum mechanics.
| > No research program that accepts quantum mechanics
| > as a given can count itself to be within Einstein's legacy."
|
| That was the usual bollocks the ignorami of this world spout about
| Einstein..
| Einstein got his Nobel prize for his work on discovering the
quantum
| nature of the photon.
| Have they never heard of the Einstein A and B coefficients for
| calculating spaectral line strengths?
| Have they never heard of who produced the quantum theory of
stimulated
| emission?
| Do they not realise that QED is a theory which is based on the
twin
| towers of Relativity and Quantum theory?
| Do they not ralise that Einstein was not alone in having severe
doubts
| about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory?
|
| > Some parts read:
| >
| > "There are by now only a minority of physicists who
| > think Einstein was right to reject quantum theory as
| > the foundation of our scientific description of nature.
| > No theory has been more successful at explaining a
| > vast array of experimental data. It is the basis of our
| > understanding of virtually all of physics, with the
| > possible exception of gravity and cosmology. Einstein
| > was willing to concede that quantum mechanics
| > explains the record behavior of the subatomic world,
| > but he was convinced it had two flaws. First, it fails
| > to give precise predictions for the outcomes of
| > individual processes. Instead, it gives ony statistical
| > predictions. To check them, one must do an experiment
| > many times and compare the resulting distributions of
| > outcomes with the predictions.
|
| That assertion could only have been made by a dilletante.
| One single event, fully analysed, proved the existence of the
Omega
| minus baryon.
| One single event, fully analysed, proved the existence of the
neutral
| current weak interaction
|
| > Second, quantum
| > theory fails to give an objective picture of the world
| > that is unconnected to our role as observers.
|
| That, too, is a grossly misused statemennt
| If slow positrons are let loose into a gas, positronium will be
formed
| and the annihilation gammas will be produced even when all the
| observers are in bed.
|
| Those fools usually forget that the word "Observer" i this context
| means simply "Equipment with detectors"
|
| > The
| > formulas of quantum theory correspond to our actions
| > in preparing experiments and measuring their outcomes.
| > Einstein objected to this because he believed strongly
| > that physics should provide a picture of nature "as it
| > is in itself".
| >
| > After I read the article, it occurs me to that what these
| > folks... Thomson, Seto, Fredifixx, TomGee, Smart, etc.
| > are doing is following the footstep of Einstein. The
| > article continues:
|
| Balls. They are ignorami whi are too big for their boots, pure
and
| simple. Ask any one of them to use, whatever line they plug, to
| produce a numerical value for
| the Lamb shift
| the magnetic moment of the muon,
| the opening angle between the outgoing particles in an event in
which
| a fast proton collides elastically with a stationary proton, when
both
| emerge with equal energies.
That is easy for me. ;-) I don't reject quantum theory at all. So
for me,
the answer to your questions is the Standard Model. And I hardly
think I am
following in the footsteps of Einstein. I would rather follow in
the
footsteps of all the great physicists using the best parts of their
ideas.
Anyone that rejects quantum theory would have to be out of their
mind.
There is just too big of a mountain of physical evidence in favor of
it.
But I do see somewhat of a classical-quantum duality situation.
IOW, they
don't exist without the other.
My final request does not involve quantum mechanics
{:-))
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics) |
19 Jan 2005 11:18:50 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:csmm62$8td$1@titan.btinternet.com...
|
| "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:356bkgF4gpmdsU1@individual.net...
| > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
| > news:csjil2$go7$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
| > |
| > | "Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > | news:1106054440.497066.158230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| > | >
| > | > I saw this nice looking magazine lying around and read
| > | > it and finally understood about Einstein and why there
| > | > are so many cranks now and what made cranks.
| > | >
| > | > The magazine | | | | |
