|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NEIL TUROK: PHYSICS NEEDS A REVOLUTION
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...dnesday-video/
"To Explain the Universe, Physics Needs a Revolution: Live Webcast Wednesday [Video] Physicist Neil Turok will describe his vision for simpler theories in a public lecture" As I suggest in my comment on the article, physics should get rid of a false fundamental axiom - Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NEIL TUROK: PHYSICS NEEDS A REVOLUTION
Physics needs a resurrection rather than a revolution (Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate killed it):
https://www.newscientist.com/article...wards-in-time/ "[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task." http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...reality-review "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-R.../9780547511726 "Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..." https://edge.org/response-detail/25477 What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900 New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century." Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NEIL TUROK: PHYSICS NEEDS A REVOLUTION
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1x9lgX8GaE
The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything - Neil Turok Public Lecture At 1:27:22 Neil Turok suggests that Einstein's general relativity is wrong. Actually it is not even wrong. Unlike special relativity, general relativity was not, to use Einstein's words, "built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions". Rather, it was "a purely empirical enterprise" - Einstein and his mathematical friends changed and fudged equations countless times until "a classified catalogue" was compiled where known in advance results and pet assumptions (such as the Mercury's precession, the equivalence principle, gravitational time dilation) coexisted in an apparently consistent manner: https://www.marxists.org/reference/a...ative/ap03.htm Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison.. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms." http://www.weylmann.com/besso.pdf Michel Janssen, The Einstein-Besso Manuscript: A Glimpse Behind the Curtain of the Wizard The making of general relativity was analogous to "curve fitting" ("empirical models") as defined he http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/docum...ve_Fitting.pdf "The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property." Note that the parameters of the empirical model "do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property". So Einstein's general relativity idiotically predicts that the speed of light falling towards the source of gravity DECREASES - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached." http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm "Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential φ would be c(1+φ/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+φ. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2φ, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term." Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NEIL TUROK: PHYSICS NEEDS A REVOLUTION
http://www.popsci.com/einsteins-theo...full-surprises
"That sensation eluded most of his colleagues back then, and it still does.. They study Einstein's greatest insight without fully grasping how he achieved it, or what it meant to him; they typically don't "feel relativity in their bones," in the words of Columbia University theoretical physicist Brian Greene. The lack of understanding comes from a sticky misconception of what general relativity is, even among those who spend their careers making use of it. It is broadly described as a theory of gravity, but it is not just a theory. It is written out as a series of equations describing how objects move, but it is not just equations. General relativity is best thought of as a landscape, both literally and figuratively." Yes, unlike special relativity, general relativity is "a landscape", or "a classified catalogue", or "a purely empirical enterprise": https://www.marxists.org/reference/a...ative/ap03.htm Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison.. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms." x Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BICEP-2 and Turok | Robert L. Oldershaw | Research | 0 | February 4th 15 10:36 PM |
Physics Today: Discoverers of the accelerating expansion of the universeshare this year's physics Nobel | Sam Wormley[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | October 6th 11 11:27 PM |
The Paradigm Shift Revolution of Physics | Stephen Mooney | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | May 31st 04 04:30 AM |
The Paradigm Shift Revolution of Physics | Stephen Mooney | SETI | 0 | May 30th 04 08:53 PM |
Steinhardt-Turok cosmology | Trakar | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 9th 03 08:47 PM |