Discussion:
The Defeat of Reason in Fundamental Physics
Add Reply
Pentcho Valev
2018-06-04 08:49:22 UTC
Réponse
Permalink
Raw Message
"The Defeat of Reason [...] After 1925 Bohr and his associates introduced a new and unprecedented lowering of critical standards for scientific theories. This led to a defeat of reason within modern physics and to an anarchist cult of incomprehensible chaos. [...] How do you convince a whole culture that it is deluded?" http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/tim-maudlin-defeat-reason

How do you convince physicists that unlimitedly long objects CANNOT be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers and therefore the premise from which the absurd conclusion is derived, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false?

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be TRAPPED IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html

"In a more complicated version of the paradox, we can physically trap the ladder once it is fully inside the garage. This could be done, for instance, by not opening the exit door again after we close it. In the frame of the garage, we assume the exit door is immovable, and so when the ladder hits it, we say that it instantaneously stops. By this time, the entrance door has also closed, and so the ladder is stuck inside the garage. As its relative velocity is now zero, it is not length contracted, and is now longer than the garage; it will have to bend, snap, or explode." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2018-06-05 06:53:14 UTC
Réponse
Permalink
Raw Message
How do you convince physicists that time travel to the future is an idiocy that is not even a valid consequence of Einstein's 1905 postulates (even if the postulates were true, "travel to the future" would remain idiotic)?

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

Loading Image...

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2018-06-06 07:41:55 UTC
Réponse
Permalink
Raw Message
Fundamental physics is dead indeed:

"Has fundamental physics really come to this?"
https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev/status/1004247095069564928

"No guys I give up with physics if this is the mainstream idea of where our field is going." https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10327

Loading Image...

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2018-06-06 20:40:45 UTC
Réponse
Permalink
Raw Message
How do you convince physicists that the "enough strangeness" (introduced by Einstein in 1918) is one of the greatest idiocies in the history of science?

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but ENOUGH STRANGENESS occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older." http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

Physics Girl (4:30): "One last question. What's happening to the clocks during the period of acceleration? We still get time dilation, but we have to use a different set of rules from the general relativity. General relativity states that clocks runs slower in accelerated reference frames. So while your twin is turning around, her clock runs slower, and she sees the same thing. She sees your clock running faster than hers, so you're aging quicker. It's during this period of acceleration that you become the older twin."


"At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself. [...] When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two." https://hubpages.com/education/Twin-Paradox

John Norton: "Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html

Pentcho Valev

Loading...