As most regulars here know I while believing Relativity describes many observations mathematically, I do not believe it is properly restrained or restricted to our physical reality and results in rather ludricrus extreme conclusions. It has occured to me that one major issue which we already seem to accept is being overlooked and should be applied to all relavistic assumptions. That is the limit of producing what we call a Singularity. If properly defined I believe we can conclude that a singularity has a volume and hence energy density, gravity, etc do not and cannot become infinite, nor does time cease due to gravity. http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm The very fact that we already accept planck as having such limits amazes me that we do not apply those limits when considering Relativity and talk about infinites which by our acceptance of planck simply do not exist. It seems to me that one should conclude that there is associated with planck length a planck volume. Assuming that to be spherical it would be. V = 4 * pi * r^3 / 3 Here I also have a question. Does one look at planck volume as being a planck diameter or two plancks in diameter? The reason is if we calculate the volume based on its physical diameter we would be forced to use a value for "r" as a physical measurement which doesn't exist or use an imaginary radius. In case of r = planck: V = 6.7E-105m^3 For r = 0.5 planck: V = 8.375E-106M^3 These volumes should limit densities, etc. How do we justify ignoring such a limit in Relativity? Go ahead. Rip me apart. It has been awhile.
I think that such ignorance can't be justified. The usual justification attempts are on the very shaky grounds of making it simple for the popular audience. It is my opinion that the non-removable singularities of relativity are nothing more than mathematical artefacts, and that to speak of them as having meaningful physical analogs is useless.
We already know that general relativity doesn't apply at length scales where quantum effects become important. The question is how to mesh the large-scale results of general relativity with the small-scale results of quantum mechanics. Nobody has yet managed to do that convincingly, but that is what string theory, quantum loop gravity and other such theories are trying to do.
MacM, You seem to consider "thing" at Planck scale is like thing you know and see, like mud or clay. Then you start talking about density at Planck scale. It is already doubtful that the concept of density has any physical meaning for particle such as electron, let alone anything smaller than electron. If I were you, I would not bother thinking about density for "something" at Planck scale level.
So you would be content to conceed that planck length may indeed be a physical parameter limit to the pure mathematical theory of Relativity? So why then are you frequently defending Relativity in areas where clearly it is neither proven by data and conflicts with QM which you also defend? I'm not trolling here. I'm trying to understand the tendancy to refuse consideration of some ideas which are no more contesting Relativity than QM when QM is generally considered equally valid to Relativity but they (QM and Relativity) don't merge but appear mutually exclusive.
Well fortunately you aren't me and I am not you. HOw do you justify Relativity and its Singularities and the infinite density, infinite gravity, etc. of all the universes mass being in a state of Singularity. How do you support Relativity and yet want to not address this issue of infinite density.?
MacM: Yes, as I said. All good physical theories have clearly defined limits of applicability. Relativity is no different. I don't believe I have defended relativity in areas in which it is inapplicable. Which areas are you thinking of, in particular? Which areas? Are you aware that many formulations of quantum mechanics have relativity built in? I know this was addressed to Pete, but can I have a go at answering it? You need to realise that in a mathematical sense, a singularity is a point at which some physical quantity seems to become unphysical, usually by becoming infinite. It is like dividing something by zero. Some singularities in the mathematics of physical theories turn out to be removable, so that they are not a problem for the physics. An example here is the apparently infinite time it takes for an object to reach the horizon of a black hole as it falls in, from the point of view of an external observer. Other singularities, such as the singularity at the centre of a black hole, or the singularity at the moment the universe began, are non-removable. These types of singularities tell us that there is most likely something wrong with the physical theory which predicts them. In both cases mentioned, we suspect that classical relativity must be replaced by a quantum theory of gravity to solve the problem.
That is OK, I didn't post this to argue Relativity. Your answer is acceptable other than since we all seem to agree the pure mathematical view must be flawed, it does seem to much faith is placed on its interpretation.
There is no "pure mathematical" view of physics. All physics starts with physical assumptions and analogies. The maths follows. It is never the other way around.
I'm a bit surprised you choose to go here. Then please list and describe the physical descriptions made by A.E. in 1905 when justifying Relativity's formulas, Ditto for the later version. You seem to have a different definition of mathematcal and physical theory than I am used to. Bohr has math but the math is based on a physical description of the atom. That is physical theory. What are the physical descriptions for the math of Relativity. Start please with describing the physical basis for the invariance of light. Saying test data does not qualify as physical theory. Although abandoned aether would be such a physical theory for the math of light speed. What physical theory did A.E. substitute for the old aether concept?
as posed inm another thread I would suggest that "nothing" would be a contender for the title of infinite singularity.... Sorry Pete...and James MacM and others...... I just coudn't resist Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
MacM: Einstein started with two postulates: 1. The laws of physics take the same form in all inertial reference frames. 2. The speed of light is constant for all observers. These are the assumptions of relativity. All the maths follows from these, as I said above. If Bohr's description of the atom is a physical description, then Einstein's relativity certainly is too. Bohr relied very heavily on theories of waves in describing the hydrogen atom. The mathematics of waves was established long before Bohr applied it to the particular problem of the atom. We use the symbol E to represent the physical quantity Energy. We use the symbol p to represent the physical quantity Momentum. We use the symbol m to represent the physical quantity Mass. etc. etc. Need I go on? All mathematical concepts in relativity have physical connections. Since you seem to want to eliminate experiment, observation and hypothesis as the basis for physical theory, I am very interested in what you think that leaves as a potential basis. No substitute was required. The aether concept was found to be superfluous.
My understanding of a singularity, which may be flawed, is unfulfilled quantum potential. Unless physical states are manifest, then no space is required to contain the resulting objects. kula
And they are not physical descriptions. They are statements standing alone. Disagree. Bohr described (perhaps wrongfully) sub-atomic particles consisting of a nucleus (Protons and Neutrons) and electrons moving in orbits around the nucleus. That is a physical description. The mathematics described the motion, energy and spacing of such orbits. But as I said he applied the math to create a physical model. 1 - (above seems ok in statement form) 2 - No such physical model describes how light is invariant. Not what I was referring to. Connections is entirely different than physical explanations. There are no physical theories of Relativity. The following is an extract from: http://www.helical-structures.org/Applications/why_successful.htm ******************************************************** "The foundations of the modern physics rely on postulates and rules adopted about 100 years ago. Now a real gap exists between the highly abstractive theories about the matter from one side, and physical reality from the other. With the advances of the applied fields the existing gap becomes more acute and some papers began to appear in the peer review journals [1]. In the beginning of the 20th century the physical science has not been able to provide logical explanations of some physical phenomena, while their mathematical interpretations appeared successful. As a result the Quantum Mechanics is born. The principle of causality, that is essentially important for the objective reality, has been replaced by the uncertainty principle. Influenced by the successful results from the quantum mechanical models, the theoretical physics gradually abandoned the physical logic and replaced it by a mathematical logic. As a result, the mathematical physics took the guiding role in theoretical physics. Now the concepts of the mathematical physics dominate and form our vision about matter, space and time. This approach led to development of highly abstracted theories in order to provide some explanations of long standing problems in a vast range from micro to macro Cosmos. In the same time not successful attempts are made to extend the individual narrow range theories into one universal unified field theory. In such approach many of the adopted rules become cross violated in the wider range of space and time. Many interdisciplinary studies indicate that the Nature from the microworld to the cosmology is in amazing harmony, so it could not be described by contradictable models or rules. Despite the enormous efforts from army of theoreticians, significant fundamental problems are not still solved [2,3]. Some attempts of explaining not solved problems relying firmly on the orthodox dogmatism and using only a mathematical logic lead even to fallacy of ambiguity [4]. " ********************************************************* The red highlites sum up what I am saying. Although a search of the web tells me I will lose this arguement since most refer to tested theories as "Physical Theories". But it is a symantics game to avoid the issue. The simple fact is there has been a failure to develope a physical understanding and description to mathematical theories such as Relativity. At no time in history have I ever suggested that experiment, observation and hypothesis should be eliminated. What I have said is they have failed to advance Relativity beyond pure mathematics. That there is no physical understanding of its processses. Superfluous is not the same as non-existant. An ether description that successfully describes the invariance of light would be the sort of theory of which I suggest is needed. Indeed Einstein stated "We have not proven ether does not exist, we have only proven we don't need an ether".
MacM: You are making a blatantly silly claim. You say that Relativity has "failed to advance beyond pure mathematics" and that there is no "physical understanding of its processes". Clearly, if that was the case, the phenomenally successful predictions derived using the theory of Relativity could never have come about. I am surprised that you have such a poor grasp of how physicists work. They don't sit down with their equations and randomly derive mathematical results, hoping that some of them might have some kind of physical application. That may be what pure mathematicians do, but not scientists. A physicist start with a real-world problem he or she wants to solve. The physicist draws on his or her knowledge of basic physical principles to guess at a potential solution, guided by existing results. The LAST step is to verify that the physicist's physical intuition about a problem is in fact correct, by making the guess quantitative and testable (and hence scientific rather than philosophical). To do that, the physicist uses mathematics, as it is the only tool which is really suited to the job. Relativity came about because Einstein applied his knowledge and physical intuition to certain unresolved problems in physics. Einstein fleshed out his ideas with mathematics, and made a number of quantitative predictions, which over time have been verified. To claim that Einstein had no physical understanding of his own theory is to drastically misjudge one of the best intuitive physical thinkers of all time. Commenting on your quote, which, from the mode of expression used, I presume comes from the usual crank websites you like to quote: Perhaps, MacM, you can explain the difference between "physical logic" and "mathematical logic" for us. The author, like you, fails to realise that mathematics is an indispensible tool of the physicist. You can't throw away the mathematics and replace it with some airy-fairy ramblings which make no quantitative predictions. The only people who want to do that are those who are not bright enough to cope with moderately complex mathematics.
Although incomplete, in my opinion Bohr's atom model is much more useful and successful than "theory" such as UniKEF. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! They look like physical descriptions to me... What do you mean by "physical description"?
Come on James. Mathematical predictions have nothing to do with physical understanding. Once again I ask you to describe how light is invariant. Physically what occurs at the photon level that makes it vary so as to remain constant velocity to every observer moving different directions and speed simultaneously. If you have such a physical view and it is so commonly known, then it shouldn't be to difficult to illustrate. I don't want to see mathematics, I want to see physical relationship drawings of the process. Beg off. My understanding is just fine. I understand that physics is now mathematical and no longer bothers to seek physical understandings. Don't distor the issue. Of course we understand physically that when we measure light while in motion that physically it doesn't change velocity relative to us when we change velocity relative to the source but that is not a physical understanding of the mechanics of how that can be. Absolutely nothing wrong with mathematics, they are absolutely necessary but mathematics alone do not provide the mechanical (physical) insight to the process. Tayloring mathematics to describe an observation does not explain the process. So then where is this written physical version of Relativity by Einstien (or anybodyelse)? He understood observation and how to write equations. The veracity of the paper cited is not at issue. I neither claimed it was nor even care what it is about. I simply used it to qualify what I was saying about Physical Models vs Mathematical Models. If I take a tube and poor water into it at a given rate and I get a volume of steam out the other end, I can write a formula that equates the water input to pounds of steam output. But that doesn't tell me a damn thing about why the water is being converted to steam. Even if I know thermodynamics, I still know nothing about the process being used physically to make the conversion. That is a mathematical view of the process. If I investigate and determine what is in the pipe or enfluencing the pipe so as to cause the conversion then I can write a physical view of the process. Please show me where I have ever said we should dispense with mathematics. That is stupid. There is no physical model without mathematics but there are mathematical models without underlying physics. Physical Models make no predictions. The mathematics do. The physical model is something you can describe or draw and illustrate. I'd give you another "Up Yours" but I'll ignore your insults instead in hopes that you will attempt to answer my questions rather than divert the issues. The simple truth is if physicists would spend just a few moments figuring out why things appear to function as they do by mathematics then they would suddenly understand why infinities and singularities don't and can't happen. i.e. - Physical Models will help properly limit the Mathematical Model to a regime of correctness. Unchecked mathematics predicts nonsense. Without physical understanding I suggest a TOE will never be found. A physical understanding could well be what is required to understand how to merge QM and Relativity. It is down right assinine and stupid to deliberately refuse to seek physical understandings of the mathematics of our observations.
MacM, what you are ssying I feel, is very valid and also a continuous caution that is needed to be kept in mind by all physicists. Mathematics is only a logic tool or device to aid us in the understanding and predicting or physical pheno.... It is unfortunate that we sometimes get a little lost in what it is we are describing. defending the math instead of the observation..... It is also unfortunate that this issure continually comes up with the usual heated discussion and diatribe.
MacM: Wrong. We can't say we have physical understanding until the mathematical predictions are verified. Why does the moon exist? Why are electrons charged? Why does 1+1 equal 2? It's just the way our universe is, MacM.
