Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ill_handle_it

Einstein's Theory Of Relativity Breaks Down ?

Recommended Posts

If this has been posted previously then I apologise -

11 minutes of my life, on a title that smells of nutter? No thanks.

You didn't tell us which theory of relativity you were talking about. No matter, I don't expect the nutter understands even the simple one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes of my life, on a title that smells of nutter? No thanks.

You didn't tell us which theory of relativity you were talking about. No matter, I don't expect the nutter understands even the simple one.

Did you watch the video ? Michio Kaku actually says at the end of the clip "It's The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it" Do you object to the concept of god ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you watch the video ? Michio Kaku actually says at the end of the clip "It's The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it" Do you object to the concept of god ?

There is a big difference between maths and physics. Maths describes all possible worlds, physics is concerned with which one we are actually living in. Since we will never be able to peer into the middle of a black hole, scientific experimentation is impossible. There is a problem with the mathematics, not the physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a big difference between maths and physics. Maths describes all possible worlds, physics is concerned with which one we are actually living in. Since we will never be able to peer into the middle of a black hole, scientific experimentation is impossible. There is a problem with the mathematics, not the physics.

Okay thanks for sorting that out. I posted the video for you to make what you will of it. I have no axe to grind either way - as far as I'm aware they do have a problem with the maths and or physics and I suspect your semantics will be of little consolation to them.

I was checking with porca misèria to see exactly where his problem was with the title - as you will probably be aware the Michio Kaku did say "the collapse of physics etc" so that just leaves the science vs god. I'm grateful "the nutter" posted the clip on You Tube. Do I understand relativity ? Nope,but I am able to enjoy watching great minds talk about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay thanks for sorting that out. I posted the video for you to make what you will of it. I have no axe to grind either way - as far as I'm aware they do have a problem with the maths and or physics and I suspect your semantics will be of little consolation to them.

I was checking with porca misèria to see exactly where his problem was with the title - as you will probably be aware the Michio Kaku did say "the collapse of physics etc" so that just leaves the science vs god. I'm grateful "the nutter" posted the clip on You Tube. Do I understand relativity ? Nope,but I am able to enjoy watching great minds talk about it.

I''m probably wrong but it seemed to me that physicists just noticed that math is inaccurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relativity has long been known to be in contradiction to quantum physics

[edit to preface my followup with the obvious note I forgot] Yes, that bothered Einstein a lot in later life. Though by then he was past his best.

Neither of them is anything more than a mathematical model, that happens to explain certain observable physical phenomena. Models of the kind that go right back to Εὐκλείδης and Ἀρχιμήδης.

Is noone on this thread even aware that the two theories of relativity are entirely different, and not just variants on a theme? So it helps if you're clear what you're talking about! Special relativity is straightforward, and leads to the famous formula commonly misquoted as E = mc2 and time dilation. General relativity is altogether more mind-bending, and gives rise to more fanciful ideas in SF via notions of an imperfect space-time manifold and singularities therein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[edit to preface my followup with the obvious note I forgot] Yes, that bothered Einstein a lot in later life. Though by then he was past his best.

Neither of them is anything more than a mathematical model, that happens to explain certain observable physical phenomena. Models of the kind that go right back to Εὐκλείδης and Ἀρχιμήδης.

Is noone on this thread even aware that the two theories of relativity are entirely different, and not just variants on a theme? So it helps if you're clear what you're talking about! Special relativity is straightforward, and leads to the famous formula commonly misquoted as E = mc2 and time dilation. General relativity is altogether more mind-bending, and gives rise to more fanciful ideas in SF via notions of an imperfect space-time manifold and singularities therein.

Well thanks again,I consider meself to 'ave been well and truly educated,there ain't no doubt,god bless you governor for giving us your precious time. So which theory has been subjected to misinterpretation by this petty little you tube offering,please tell,please do. I'd so much like for you to watch it. I reckon 11 minutes of your life must be worth about 10 yrs of my sordid existence,so I'd understand if you're too busy likes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting video but somewhat misleading.

In simplistic terms, Relativity was formulated in 1905 and about 1915. This theory describes the very large universe.

Quantum mechanics was formulated in the 20's and onwards and describes the very small universe.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you can link these two theories together you get one big theory that would describe everything -in a sense the ultimate theory of the universe.

However the maths doesn't allow you to do this. What this indicates is that we don't know everything and that neither theory is 100% correct. And we are still working on finding what the correct theory is. But this isn't a "disaster", "the end of physics as we know it" or some sort of proof of God. All it says is that we don't know everything yet and we're continuing to work on it.

None of this is a revelation. Physicists have been working for decades to try to reconcile QM and relatively, and might work for decades yet in order to achieve a solution, but there is no evidence to suggest a solution is not possible.

Part of the problem of finding a solution is finding systems that do not obey the theories we currently have. That's difficult, because both Relativity and QM are astoundingly accurate and AFAIK nothing has been found so far that exhibits a deviation from them within experimental error (if we could find something maybe it would provide us with some clues on how to proceed, rather than just juggling with a huge variety of different maths).

The video gives the impression that theoretical physicists are all down the pub staring into an empty pint glass and saying we're doomed, there's just no way forwards. In fact the complete opposite is true. There are multiple theories that look promising and many different experiments such as the LHC, Planck and various other cosomogical experiments are currently being performed that may well give us the spark of inspiration necessary to complete the theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video gives the impression that theoretical physicists are all down the pub staring into an empty pint glass and saying we're doomed, there's just no way forwards. In fact the complete opposite is true. There are multiple theories that look promising and many different experiments such as the LHC, Planck and various other cosomogical experiments are currently being performed that may well give us the spark of inspiration necessary to complete the theory.

Talking of which, this is a totally new one on me: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128241.700-beyond-spacetime-welcome-to-phase-space.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I use up 11 mins of my life on it, this isn't a video now saying God may now exist is it? :unsure:

Well,without wanting to get into too long a debate on the matter, I don't think he's trying to say this, although if you watch it you'll see that it's presented in a rather fatalistic way and that people with a certain agenda might use this to support their beliefs.

Of course it is no more proof that god exists than when the precession of the perihelion of Mecurcy was observed to lie outside the prediction of Newtons Theory of Gravitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I use up 11 mins of my life on it, this isn't a video now saying God may now exist is it? :unsure:

No,I'm not suggesting god exists,at least not from that which you have quoted me. Porca Misèria could not bring himself to view the video because of the title on you tube. Unfortunately (at least this is what I believe) the line he took offence to was actually quoted by Kaku in the video towards the end of the arduously long 11 minute video. I therefore assumed that perhaps the reference to god may have hit a nerve,nothing more.

In terms of god,I can see why those with theistic leanings would take interest in a scientist saying that they are at a loss to explain certain elements of the cosmos,after all some people suggest that all believers are "nutters". To answer your question directly - yes god could exist. There is a difference between being an anti-theist & an atheist. In order for one to exclude the possibility of a god,one would have to be able to define it,and god is just a word,a concept. As Alan Watts once said "you cannot get wet from the word water".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've got to laugh at the "Because we don't understand it proves there's a God" nutters.

It's the Flying Spaghetti Monster syndrome that shows religious types to be the gullible fools they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the Flying Spaghetti Monster syndrome that shows religious types to be the gullible fools they are.

Don't take the name of the Holy Pastaness in vain you infidel. I'll have the EHRC on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thanks again,I consider meself to 'ave been well and truly educated,there ain't no doubt,god bless you governor for giving us your precious time. So which theory has been subjected to misinterpretation by this petty little you tube offering,please tell,please do. I'd so much like for you to watch it. I reckon 11 minutes of your life must be worth about 10 yrs of my sordid existence,so I'd understand if you're too busy likes.

porca is an incredibly intelligent poster here - you'd be wise to get to his level of understanding on this subject if you can (which is probably almost impossible as I believe he studied this area at Cambridge).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

porca is an incredibly intelligent poster here - you'd be wise to get to his level of understanding on this subject if you can (which is probably almost impossible as I believe he studied this area at Cambridge).

He may well be,however he wasn't smart enough to watch the video before making comment and as a result looks rather foolish. I'd also suggest his knowledge has not served him well,he'd be wise to show some manners and respect for other peoples opinion and beliefs. I do not,and have not claimed to possess anything other than a casual interest in the subject. Okay - just a couple of other things,when people write "that's 11 (insert whatever) minutes of my life I won't get back" it's not funny. It's not original and wasn't even funny the first time. Next - if you don't wana watch something - don't fooking watch it - like I give a phuck,so he went to uni,yippee dee. 99.9% of the stuff on the board I have no interest in viewing but I don't shat all over the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He may well be,however he wasn't smart enough to watch the video before making comment and as a result looks rather foolish. I'd also suggest his knowledge has not served him well,he'd be wise to show some manners and respect for other peoples opinion and beliefs. I do not,and have not claimed to possess anything other than a casual interest in the subject. Okay - just a couple of other things,when people write "that's 11 (insert whatever) minutes of my life I won't get back" it's not funny. It's not original and wasn't even funny the first time. Next - if you don't wana watch something - don't fooking watch it - like I give a phuck,so he went to uni,yippee dee. 99.9% of the stuff on the board I have no interest in viewing but I don't shat all over the thread.

He didn't merely go to uni. He went to the top uni in the world for this particular subject. And this gives him the right to make comments on such a video, even without watching it, as he almost certainly has a good idea what the contents will be. This is his pet subject.

Addressing your other point, I don't think people are trying to be funny with the 11 minutes comment - they are serious I believe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

porca is an incredibly intelligent poster here - you'd be wise to get to his level of understanding on this subject if you can (which is probably almost impossible as I believe he studied this area at Cambridge).

Thank you :)

That's true up to a point. I actually read Einstein's own book on special relativity (the easy one) at age about 15, around the time I first realised maths was a whole lot more interesting than the drudgery on the school's syllabus. It was one of the things that motivated me to do maths for my degree. But once at Cambridge I found myself moving in the direction of pure maths (with statistics as secondary interest), so I didn't really get exposure to the best brains on the subjects of physics and cosmology beyond the first year. There's a fair likelihood someone else here knows as much or more than me on the subject.

Executive summary of special relativity: much of classical physics is rooted in the premise that transmission of light from A to B is instantaneous. That is to say, light travels infinitely fast. This is a valid approximation for many purposes, but not strictly accurate. Einstein observed that the speed of light affects the laws of physics as we knew them, and worked through the implications of that.

If anyone can write a comparable precis of GR, you're ahead of me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Executive summary of special relativity: much of classical physics is rooted in the premise that transmission of light from A to B is instantaneous. That is to say, light travels infinitely fast. This is a valid approximation for many purposes, but not strictly accurate. Einstein observed that the speed of light affects the laws of physics as we knew them, and worked through the implications of that.

I was a really bad student, despite studying physics at university (where I put in no effort whatsoever, much to my later regret) so there are doubtless far more knowledgeable people around, but I think it's worth mentioning that it's the implications from the speed of light being constant that Einstein worked out. The constant speed of light arises from Maxwell's equations, pre-Einstein. Unfortunately I never got to grasp what the hell they were going on about, my interest in maths fizzling out the more calculus got involved due to it being a mess (in my view, of course - too many arbitrary rules needed to get anything practical done with it for my taste).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've got to laugh at the "Because we don't understand it proves there's a God" nutters.

It's the Flying Spaghetti Monster syndrome that shows religious types to be the gullible fools they are.

Firstly thanks for that - amazing wit indeed. The irony is that many physicists are interested in metaphysical subjects not least the concept of a soul and a continuing consciousness after "death" - but of course after, before and now may actually all be the same thing.

My point that you cannot deny something's existence without being able to define it is wonderfully supported by your razor sharp wit - you are able to define your hilarious (you really are wasted here) flying spaghetti monster - because it has flight,I presume in an earth like atmosphere -it's made from pasta or eats pasta (I'm not sure) and it's a monster (your definition of a monster but its kids may well love her or him,if it has a sex). You see god may not be anything you can even imagine or begin to define - good luck with the comedy - actually your lack of wit is testing my "faith".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you :)

That's true up to a point. I actually read Einstein's own book on special relativity (the easy one) at age about 15, around the time I first realised maths was a whole lot more interesting than the drudgery on the school's syllabus. It was one of the things that motivated me to do maths for my degree. But once at Cambridge I found myself moving in the direction of pure maths (with statistics as secondary interest), so I didn't really get exposure to the best brains on the subjects of physics and cosmology beyond the first year. There's a fair likelihood someone else here knows as much or more than me on the subject.

Executive summary of special relativity: much of classical physics is rooted in the premise that transmission of light from A to B is instantaneous. That is to say, light travels infinitely fast. This is a valid approximation for many purposes, but not strictly accurate. Einstein observed that the speed of light affects the laws of physics as we knew them, and worked through the implications of that.

If anyone can write a comparable precis of GR, you're ahead of me!

As far as I can remember, and not checking with Wikipedia, GR was Einstein's generalisation of SR to take account of gravitational attraction, which he modelled as distortions in an otherwise flat time-space continuum. It's generally regarded as his crowning achievement and predicts, amongst other things, the existence of black holes.

By the way, I'm surprised you didn't recognise the picture of Michio Kaku, who is, obviously, a highly respected physicist and not a "nutter". Mind you, he is something of a self-publicist and prone to New Scientist-type dramatisation, so I can understand you not bothering to watch the video. I didn't either. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 343 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.