Discussion:
Why Can't We Find the Theory of Everything? Einstein, Rogue Genius, String Theory | Eric Weinstein
(too old to reply)
benj
2019-06-11 15:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Why Can't We Find the Theory of Everything? Einstein, Rogue Genius, String Theory | Eric Weinstein

"Einstein's theory of relativity revolutionized our view of the universe, positing a space-time continuum undergirding all reality. Equally impactful has been quantum mechanics, which describe the behavior of subatomic particles in ways that differ from observable matter. But both theories have been verified by empirical observation and scientific experiments. String theory, and a select number of other theories that purport to explain the universe in one, all-encompassing equation, remain completely divorced from the physical world. Surely theories about the universe must relate directly to the matter in it?! Did Einstein get it wrong, or has groupthink led us down the wrong path for the last 40 years?"
"So you’d be hard-pressed to say that nothing is happening. The problem is that we really wanted to quantize the geometry of general relativity but, in fact, what we ended up doing was geometrizing the quantum."
"It is a question as to whether this is more of a physics-inspired theory or whether it’s really an economic and sociological phenomenon, which is that you have a generation that physicists in the baby boom who seem to be absolutely astounding geometers but appear to be wanting in terms of their ability to make contact with the natural world by the standards of previous generations."
"And naturally that’s going to elicit some very strong feelings, because the idea that we would have had perhaps two generations let’s say in 40 years of physicists who can’t make contact with experimental reality with their theories is completely unprecedented in the modern era."
Excellent choice, Wormley! I rag on you a lot for your worship of idiot
journo-science propaganda sites like Phys.org and others. But I'm not
here to just denigrate you like some insane liberal idiot, If you start
to actually think, I'm going to notice and praise you for it. And Eric
is of course a very smart Jew. So he may appear to worship Einstein like
you do, but he asks all the right questions. So he praises Einstein for
"revolutionizing" all physics, which is clearly NOT true since the
theory of relativity came from Galileo not Einstein as journo-science
preaches. Einstein merely advanced the mathematics from mechanics to
electromagnetics.

General relativity on the other hand is merely a mathematical theory of
gravity. And what this theory did was (as Eric notes) ruin physics by
divesting it of the reality it possessed in the 19th century. It spawned
the erroneous idea that math fantasy is somehow more real than reality.
Naturally, as science slipped into fantasy, science turned into science
fiction to be made into TV programs on PBS. In other words Einstein the
great cosmic genius gets to take some credit for foisting journo-science
nonsense on the world.

The problem as Eric quickly homes in on is that unlike in the liberal
world of journo-science where facts do not matter, in real science,
facts are the ONLY thing that matters! And the lasting problem of the
quantum effects is that the obvious link between these effects and a
continuum universe lives in the heat theory of Phlogiston! Once that is
perceived, a fundamental fact of the nature of the foundations of all
reality becomes obvious and the long sought after TOE falls out almost
like magic as phenomenon after phenomenon falls into place!

Yes Eric almost gets it and you Sammy deserve credit for posting his
posing of these real and fundamental questions of science rather than
your usual parroting of nonsense journo-lies about climate. So, Sammy,
this time you did good!
Thomas Heger
2019-06-12 01:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Why Can't We Find the Theory of Everything? Einstein, Rogue Genius,
String Theory | Eric Weinstein
     http://youtu.be/Yw88utUCx9M
"Einstein's theory of relativity revolutionized our view of the
universe, positing a space-time continuum undergirding all reality.
Equally impactful has been quantum mechanics, which describe the
behavior of subatomic particles in ways that differ from observable
matter. But both theories have been verified by empirical observation
and scientific experiments. String theory, and a select number of
other theories that purport to explain the universe in one,
all-encompassing equation, remain completely divorced from the
physical world. Surely theories about the universe must relate
directly to the matter in it?! Did Einstein get it wrong, or has
groupthink led us down the wrong path for the last 40 years?"
"So you’d be hard-pressed to say that nothing is happening. The
problem is that we really wanted to quantize the geometry of general
relativity but, in fact, what we ended up doing was geometrizing the
quantum."
Well, seems to be a good idea!

Quantum mechanics is based on a certain assumption:

flat (uncurved) spacetime.

IOW: QM works with one dimensions of time in 3d space without gravity,
(what is not the assumption of GR).

So: QM should describe entities, which are a subset of something more
complex, that emerge, if such conditions are given.

My personal idea to solve this problem is to take spacetime of GR as
'real thing' and make particles out of it.

I call this concept 'structured spacetime' where particles are such
structures:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

..
Post by benj
"It is a question as to whether this is more of a physics-inspired
theory or whether it’s really an economic and sociological phenomenon,
which is that you have a generation that physicists in the baby boom
who seem to be absolutely astounding geometers but appear to be
wanting in terms of their ability to make contact with the natural
world by the standards of previous generations."
"And naturally that’s going to elicit some very strong feelings,
because the idea that we would have had perhaps two generations let’s
say in 40 years of physicists who can’t make contact with experimental
reality with their theories is completely unprecedented in the modern
era."
Excellent choice, Wormley! I rag on you a lot for your worship of idiot
journo-science propaganda sites like Phys.org and others. But I'm not
here to just denigrate you like some insane liberal idiot, If you start
to actually think, I'm going to notice and praise you for it. And Eric
is of course a very smart Jew. So he may appear to worship Einstein like
you do, but he asks all the right questions. So he praises Einstein for
"revolutionizing" all physics, which is clearly NOT true since the
theory of relativity came from Galileo not Einstein as journo-science
preaches. Einstein merely advanced the mathematics from mechanics to
electromagnetics.
There had been several 'flavors' of relativity, created by different
authors.

My favorite is the version of Hermann Minkowski.
Post by benj
General relativity on the other hand is merely a mathematical theory of
gravity. And what this theory did was (as Eric notes) ruin physics by
divesting it of the reality it possessed in the 19th century. It spawned
the erroneous idea that math fantasy is somehow more real than reality.
Naturally, as science slipped into fantasy, science turned into science
fiction to be made into TV programs on PBS. In other words Einstein the
great cosmic genius gets to take some credit for foisting journo-science
nonsense on the world.
Well, possibly the universe operates on principles, which are somehow
mathematical.

In this case we would only need to identify the appropriate type of math.

My opinion is: the mathematical principles used by the universe must be
something like that of complex numbers, but not flat like a sheet of
paper, since nature has volume.

I think, that bi-quaternions (also known as: complex four vectors) seem
to be the most useful construct, if we try to mimic the behavior of nature.

(This is at least the assumption of my 'book' - the google doc quoted
above).

TH

...
Keith Stein
2019-06-12 14:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
My personal idea to solve this problem is to take spacetime of GR as
'real thing' and make particles out of it.
I call this concept 'structured spacetime' where particles are such
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
A great deal of work in that, so thank you for that Thomas.

Unfortunately your efforts are largely wasted, since you
fail to recognize that the speed of light is no more constant
than is the speed of sound, and Einstein totally misled 20th
century physics with his constant speed of light nonsense.

However you do make some useful points, including the fact
it is sometimes better to consider the medium as a continuum.
and i agree that this can be helpful in understanding both
sound waves and light waves,

"The speed of sound is higher than the speed of the atoms"

Depends what you mean,Thomas,for sure there will always be
some atoms with a velocity greater than the speed of sound.
but you are correct in thinking that if we treat the medium
as a continuum then the velocity of that continuous medium,
as a sound wave passes through that continuous medium,though
finite, will be [well] less than c.

Which is well true Thomas,
And a good point you make.

(If that's what you meant eh!) ;)

keith stein

...
Thomas Heger
2019-06-12 23:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Thomas Heger
My personal idea to solve this problem is to take spacetime of GR as
'real thing' and make particles out of it.
I call this concept 'structured spacetime' where particles are such
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
A great deal of work in that, so thank you for that Thomas.
Unfortunately your efforts are largely wasted, since you
fail to recognize that the speed of light is no more constant
than is the speed of sound, and Einstein totally misled 20th
century physics with his constant speed of light nonsense.
In the used 'spacetime-view' velocity is an angle.

So I define light with the angle of 45° degree. Hence the speed of light
is always the same (c=45°) and always constant.

Since I try to use complex numbers and treat the spacetime diagram as
kind of Argand-diagram, this angle is between the imaginary axis
(->timelike) and the real axis (->spacelike). Light is than doing this:
'one step up and one step right/left'.

But constant speed of light does not say, that other velocities are
impossible. You could easily imagine other curves. Steeper angles
represent slower velocities and flat curves are faster than light. Only
that is not light.

Since 'light in vacuum' is actually what we see in the night sky and
that light moves to the observer along the past light cone, we could
assume, that the vision we have from the night sky ('universe') is
actually our own past light cone.

The picture is observer dependent, since all observers are at different
locations. Therefore every observer sees a different 'universe', filled
with different objects and equipped with a different axis of time.
Post by Keith Stein
However you do make some useful points, including the fact
it is sometimes better to consider the medium as a continuum.
and i agree that this can be helpful in understanding both
sound waves and light waves,
"The speed of sound is higher than the speed of the atoms"
Depends what you mean,Thomas,for sure there will always be
some atoms with a velocity greater than the speed of sound.
but you are correct in thinking that if we treat the medium
as a continuum then the velocity of that continuous medium,
as a sound wave passes through that continuous medium,though
finite, will be [well] less than c.
Sound waves moving through material objects are usually faster than the
atoms of the lattice, the matter is composed of.

Denser matter has faster sound than lighter material. 'Very low density
matter' is actually empty space (vacuum) which let no sound pass at all.
Post by Keith Stein
Which is well true Thomas,
And a good point you make.
Thanks a lot.
Post by Keith Stein
(If that's what you meant eh!) ;)
keith stein
 ...
TH
Keith Stein
2019-06-13 11:18:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Thomas Heger
My personal idea to solve this problem is to take spacetime of GR as
'real thing' and make particles out of it.
I call this concept 'structured spacetime' where particles are such
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
A great deal of work in that, so thank you for that Thomas.
Unfortunately your efforts are largely wasted, since you
fail to recognize that the speed of light is no more constant
than is the speed of sound, and Einstein totally misled 20th
century physics with his constant speed of light nonsense.
In the used 'spacetime-view' velocity is an angle.
So I define light with the angle of 45° degree. Hence the speed of light
is always the same (c=45°) and always constant.
Where the VERTICAL axis is TIME in seconds,
and the HORIZONTAL axis is DISTANCE in light-seconds.

and OF COURSE in those damn fool units you will get a
straight line at an angle of 45 degrees, because of
course light travels 1 light second in 1 second eh!,
and that is what Einstein did Michael, he DEFINES the
speed of light as CONSTANT IN ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE!

simply AN IMPOSSIBILITY,
to an old Classical Physicist, like me. For consider, Thomas:
Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.

A B
light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
tA tB

Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s

Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B

Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
= L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
= L/(tB-tA) + v
= c + v
Post by Thomas Heger
But the clocks (as seen by me) are no longer in synch, and if I tried
to compensate
Post by Thomas Heger
for that, the distance A-B (as seen by me) is different, and I
*still* come up with
Post by Thomas Heger
c for the speed of light! Cool how that works, isn't it?
Exactly Michael, you will get 'c' whatever the instruments show, and
if you can't correctly measure the velocity of light relative to an
observer walking through a laboratory, then you certainly got no chance
of correctly measuring the velocity of light relative to a moving space
craft eh!

keith stein
Post by Thomas Heger
Since I try to use complex numbers and treat the spacetime diagram as
kind of Argand-diagram, this angle is between the imaginary axis
'one step up and one step right/left'.
But constant speed of light does not say, that other velocities are
impossible. You could easily imagine other curves. Steeper angles
represent slower velocities and flat curves are faster than light. Only
that is not light.
Since 'light in vacuum' is actually what we see in the night sky and
that light moves to the observer along the past light cone, we could
assume, that the vision we have from the night sky ('universe') is
actually our own past light cone.
The picture is observer dependent, since all observers are at different
locations. Therefore every observer sees a different 'universe', filled
with different objects and equipped with a different axis of time.
Post by Keith Stein
However you do make some useful points, including the fact
it is sometimes better to consider the medium as a continuum.
and i agree that this can be helpful in understanding both
sound waves and light waves,
"The speed of sound is higher than the speed of the atoms"
Depends what you mean,Thomas,for sure there will always be
some atoms with a velocity greater than the speed of sound.
but you are correct in thinking that if we treat the medium
as a continuum then the velocity of that continuous medium,
as a sound wave passes through that continuous medium,though
finite, will be [well] less than c.
Sound waves moving through material objects are usually faster than
the atoms of the lattice, the matter is composed of.
Well my own expertise in the transmission of acoustic
pressure waves in gases, and, probably for that reason,
i had (incorrectly i now see) assumed that is it was
the atoms of a gas, rather than a solid, which we were
talking about, so ignore what i wrote previously eh! :)
Thomas Heger
2019-06-13 19:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Thomas Heger
My personal idea to solve this problem is to take spacetime of GR as
'real thing' and make particles out of it.
I call this concept 'structured spacetime' where particles are such
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
A great deal of work in that, so thank you for that Thomas.
Unfortunately your efforts are largely wasted, since you
fail to recognize that the speed of light is no more constant
than is the speed of sound, and Einstein totally misled 20th
century physics with his constant speed of light nonsense.
In the used 'spacetime-view' velocity is an angle.
So I define light with the angle of 45° degree. Hence the speed of
light is always the same (c=45°) and always constant.
Where the VERTICAL axis is TIME in seconds,
and the HORIZONTAL axis is DISTANCE in light-seconds.
and OF COURSE in those damn fool units you will get a
straight line at an angle of 45 degrees, because of
course light travels 1 light second in 1 second eh!,
and that is what Einstein did Michael, he DEFINES the
speed of light as CONSTANT IN ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE!
a straight line is actually a part of the light cone. That cone has a
certain meaning, which is commonly forgotten:

A circle in a 3d spacetime diagram means in fact a sphere.

A sphere is meant to belong to a certain time and older spheres are
larger (along our past light cone).

Since that past light cone is actually what we see in the night sky, the
space we see is not real, since the pictures we see at the same time
belong to different ages in the past, hence do not build a physical system.

That alone would make one wonder, what cosmologists are actually doing.

But more interesting is this:
if 'space' and 'universe' are actually a picture a certain observer
receives from his past, than are all these spaces the same?

Well, certainly not, since all observers should see a valid universe,
hence cannot see the same, because their past is not the same.

From this we can draw the conclusion, that all observers have also
different measures of time.

Even past and future are not the same universally, since any possible
observer has his own past and future.

If so we could define time on the foundation of local observations and
grant similar rights to all other observers.

Those other observers would therefor define other directions of past and
future, other spaces and other measures for space and time.

If we take any of these definitions, we always find c to be 1
light-second per second (however that second might be defined).

...


TH
Thomas Heger
2019-06-15 06:45:37 UTC
Permalink
Am 13.06.2019 um 21:22 schrieb Thomas Heger:
...
Post by Thomas Heger
a straight line is actually a part of the light cone. That cone has a
A circle in a 3d spacetime diagram means in fact a sphere.
A sphere is meant to belong to a certain time and older spheres are
larger (along our past light cone).
Since that past light cone is actually what we see in the night sky, the
space we see is not real, since the pictures we see at the same time
belong to different ages in the past, hence do not build a physical system.
That alone would make one wonder, what cosmologists are actually doing.
if 'space' and 'universe' are actually a picture a certain observer
receives from his past, than are all these spaces the same?
Well, certainly not, since all observers should see a valid universe,
hence cannot see the same, because their past is not the same.
From this we can draw the conclusion, that all observers have also
different measures of time.
Even past and future are not the same universally, since any possible
observer has his own past and future.
If so we could define time on the foundation of local observations and
grant similar rights to all other observers.
Those other observers would therefor define other directions of past and
future, other spaces and other measures for space and time.
If we take any of these definitions, we always find c to be 1
light-second per second (however that second might be defined).
Even more interesting is this question:

if space is 'relative' than how does this affects its content (matter)???

If we could 'grab' the axis of time and turn it into another direction,
then how are space, time and material objects are influenced by this?

Well, time should stay time, if we twist the axis of time of our local
environment.

It would not be the same time, but still behaves like time and we could
not really notice any difference.

Space would kind of shrink and would eventually vanish in a black hole.

But we wouldn't worry, since with loosing space we see another one
unfolding.

Matter of the former space, however, seems to be lost, too, while new
matter pops out of nowhere.


TH

Loading...