Actually we are in general agreement here. I too know that there is no such thing as truth as we might describe it. That is why as I said "Truth as we can know it". We agree about Strings, I guess we don't agree that parts of Relativity are in the same class and the fact that some parts we do think we know are subject to better alteranative views. i.e. - Infinite mass with velocity (over and above E=mc^2 conversion) vs decreased energy transfer efficiency at relavistic velocities.
I don't agree with your conclusion at all. I have never spoken against Bohr and it is infact the sort of steps that we now need but no longer see. Newton was wrong too but to say so certainly doesn't disgrace his work. They both were pioneers and showed excellent common sense and thought processes.
MacM: No need; you're close enough. What I said was that there is no way anybody can ever know that they have the "absolute truth", even if such a thing exists. A physical model is still a model. If it makes accurate predictions, then it is a good model. If it doesn't, it is a bad model. But is it the truth? You'll never know. For somebody who spends so much of his time claiming that physicists lack imagination, it is interesting that you now advocate going only with what we know and what we can do now. In 1930, Bose and Einstein derived a mathematical result which predicted a new phase of matter - the Bose-Einstein condensate. This was precisely analogous to using the theory of relativity to predict the (possible) existence of wormholes. In this particular case, it took another 68 years before anybody saw an actual Bose-Einstein condensate. It is a good thing that Bose and Einstein didn't just spend their time building what could be built in 1930, which is what you would have done in their position. I am interested in what is in the box if there's a chance of finding out what is in the box. The thing is, MacM, that you don't know that time warps and worm holes are fairy tales. You're prejudging things, which is something real physicists try very hard not to do. As for the limits on relativity, we already have a very good idea of what they are. Full-scale testing is often impossible. You can't build a black hole to see whether your black hole theory is correct. You can't build a particle accelerator which mimics conditions in the early universe beyond a certain energy level, because the amount of energy required is unattainable. Science extrapolates data all the time, in every field. Things are seldom, if at all, tested to "full scale". It is, of course, possible that at 99.999999999999999999999% of the speed of light, the equations of relativity might conceivably break down and be replaced with some other mathematical law. But we must assume this is at least unlikely, given that the equations seem to apply for all speeds less than that. If a theory holds in 99.99999999999999999999999% of cases, then assuming it most probably holds for the other 0.000000000000000000000001% of cases is a fairly safe bet, I would think. As you say, it is confirmed by experiment. Call it ludicrous all you like - the universe disagrees with you. What mechanism do you propose for the reduction in energy transfer efficiency? And why does this mechanism also affect the half-lives of particles, in exactly the way relativity predicts? Yes, of course it exists. You have to understand how i crops up in physical theories, of course, to make sense of it. Sometimes, it is no more than a convenient tool, but at other times it is indispensible to providing a realistic model. Given your restrictions, I agree with you that it is impossible to prove that v=c is a speed limit. But you must realise that you are setting an impossible task. No amount of physical data will ever prove that v=c is a speed limit. If we observe 1 million objects not going faster than the speed of light, that doesn't mean that the million-and-first object won't go faster. So, given that we can never prove that v=c is a speed limit in terms that you would agree with, what are we to do? I say, we should believe the conclusion that both the mathematics of relativity, and all the available experimental data, points to unequivocally - that v=c is a speed limit. You want to keep that 0.00000000000000000000001% window of uncertainty open. Why? I am quite happy to change my mind about v=c being a speed limit if appropriate data happens to come to hand, but with these kinds of odds, there's no way I'm going to waste my time looking for such data. I'll leave that up to you. In science, a Theory is something which has been so well-tested that is is reasonable to give it provisional truth status, unless and until contrary evidence arises. The theory of relativity certainly fits the bill.
We agree. You seem to have a different view of my position. I am not against mathematical models. I would be even more against just physical models since they do not predict results and would have little value without the associated mathematics. My objection is to not supplementing mathematics with physical understanding. It might appear a minor issue but it really isn't. The physical model will result in understanding the limits of the mathematical model and lead ot new discoveries. Point: We need both. Math alone is better than physical alone but neither is as good as both tied together. I have never said physicists lack imagination. I have said and do say they are wasting their imagination. There is far to much Star Trek science out there and not enough effort to understand the underlying functions of the mathematical model. Not a good comparison. BEC in fact has some physical modeling. That is descriptions of how it all comes together and functions. BEC was not simply a mathematical prediction. Not so. BEC is entirely different than predicting time travel, wormholes, infinities and singularities. I'm not even saying these things should not be pointed out. But there is an affixiation with them that is not justified. People refuse to look into the mathematics that predicts such things to determine the physical reality which would (in my estimation) lay waste to many such issues and stop wasting time with them. Good. Then lets explore alternative explanations for our relavistic observations using reasonable physical models. Both our goals would be achieved. Then why does it seem that all of science is affixiated with the bizzar and unachievable and refuses to explore alternative explanations for our observations and rely rather on unrestrained mathematical extrapolations? We agree. But once the Black Hole has been mathematically constructed one should then step back and think well this is nice but infinities and singularities are not realistic - So what is in the box that limits such a result. That is what they fail to do. You do seem to be exaggerating the number of decimal places of achievement. HeHe. No I rather think you disagree with the universe. The universe doesn't create physical infinities, physical singularities or allow time travel into the past. I cover that but can't redevelope it all here. The mathematics for a physical understanding of this affect is available. Once you understand that time is only change caused by energy flow, your question becomes answered. Stop treating time as some wonderful thing that can be independantly manipulated. See you still do not understand that since it crops up in our mathematics that it doesn't have a physical reality. Please capture and ship me one pound of "i's. I haven't made any restrictions. I have said show your proof beyond mathematical predictions which haven't been properly restrained by physical understanding. You also seem to not appreciate that you don't see objects that are v > c in the line of sight. As soon as they would reach v = c they would vanish by lorentz contraction. But only with a grain of salt while we actively seek a better answer. Not take it as gosepel and stop looking at alternatives. Again you not only exagerate the decimal places but mis-state the issue. Relavistic mass is not a 0.00000001% issues. It is outright mis-interpretation of observed data. i.e. - it doesn't exist. Just because something works is not good enough. We must discover why it works. Otherwise there really is no understandings, and you become just bumbling button pushers on calculators. I now repeat my basis for this thread: **************************************************** 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. *******************************************
Hi Mac, You appear to be railing against pop-science, which I think is a product of the media more than the scientific community. Just an observation. Edit: I should add that this forum's content owes more to pop-science than hard (as opposed to soft) science.
Hi Pete, Not sure I follow your objection. My post was not in response to some pop article and as you can see relativists continue to not only defend Relativity into these regimes where it is not supported by evidence but actually ignore such evidence as QM. It seems far more logical that QM should be used to limit the applications of relavistic mathematics and move on. But then so much SciFi would be lost - hmmmm.
Are you saying that SciForums is in consistant with current scientific community views? This issue of planck limits and the rejection of its impact on the extrapolations of Relativity theory mathematics has clearly been rejected here.
I was reading a book last night and came across the following quote: "If the study of GR [General Relativity] teaches us only one thing, it should be that physics rests ultimately on measurements; concepts like distance, time, velocity, energy and mass are derived from measurements, but they are often not the quantities directly measured, and one's assumptions about their global properties must be guided by a careful understanding of how they are related to measurements." Notice that the author is specifically saying that GR is grounded in physical measurements, as opposed to mathematics. Where did this quote come from? Answer: Bernard F. Schutz, A first course in General Relativity. Asserting that relativistics are first and foremost concerned with mathematics is bunk.
Sorry. The bunk is to try and argue that physical measurements (observations) is consistant with Physical Theory. These measuremenat do not attempt to describe why we see such measurements. that is the underlying physical aspect missing. The mathematical Theory is based on observation (i.e. - measurements) alone and is devoid any effort to identify what is in the box.
The aim of physics is to describe the world we can see (read "measure"). If you want to imagine little pixies driving the system from the inside, that's just fine, but it's not physics unless the pixies are observable.
so say for example some one measures the voltage of a given output. It is true that the measurement it standard and valid but the measurement does not indicate what the underlying causality of that voltage is. it only indicates the effect of that causality and not the cause it self. Unfortunately as MacM is stating we just seem to go on talking about effect rather than cause.......and until we actually discover cause the measurements are only playing with the outcomes and not the cause. I think what mac is saying that we need to spend more time working on causality than effect. It is true that effect can and will lead us to cause but this must be maintained in focus otherwise we just end up playing with ourselves getting nowhere fast......
Is that why you choose to not integrate planck length into your relavistic calculations - they aren't observable? Just what observations convience you that the mathematics of Relativity are valid. I understand they predict results but you completely ignore alternate explanations for the data and the consequences are entirely different than those projected by Relativity at the extreme ends of the spectrum. i.e. - Alternative view of what the measured invariance of light means. The alternate ideas about the apparent mass increase with velocity in particle generators. I do not see you seriously questioning anything but only going along for the ride whereever it takes you based on nothing but mathematics.
Pretty good summary of my position but I wouldn't want to suggest that predicting affect is not useful. Without being able to predict affect knowing cause would be worthless. However, knowing cause would place practical limits on the mathematics predicting affect and we could move on to more useful studies than some of those mentioned above.
Not all posts on sciforums are consistent with views generally accepted in the scientific community. Especially in the details, in which sciforums shares a lot more with popular science media than with the writings of the scientific community. I suggest that you'd get a better of idea of what the scientific community thinks by reading science journals instead of semi-anonymous Internet postings.
I guess also another problem is we like the idea of consistency.....in regards to formula and results of formula.....that things will continue to be linea or proportional..... For example of your little box, winding it to a speed of say 10000rpm may produce a linea observation of 10000rpm input 10000rpm output but after 10000 rpm the relationship could simply change and become less linea....or even chaotic..... so to assume linea progression simply as a convenience is a disturbing assumption. the word linea may not be the correct word, even proportionality posssible an error of word use. The effect of velocity is asumed to be linea andwhilst thi smay be a relatively safe association it can not be inferred as true until tested. It reminds me of my days testing automotive engines and how when we crank the motors up the out put is far from linea for many reasons.
MacM: No. Relativity is not a quantum theory, so it does not apply at the Planck length. Do I really need to go through them all again? Which alternate explanations? I haven't seen any viable alternative with the explanatory power of relativity. SHow me the maths. I don't see you seriously questioning anything, but only going along for the ride based on nothing but your imagination of imaginary worlds, separate from all observation and measurement.
You do need to read slower or stop trying to distort a record. I have never said Relativity is QM. I said (and it seems at least at your level is absolutely true) you ignore any and all theories and or observations which differ from Relativity. I take QM to be at least as valuable if not more so than Relativity yet Planck is left completely out of Relativity and the singularities and infinites remain in. You need to modify Relativity to include such limits as are indicated by QM or admit that Relativity is old hat. Clever, you have broken my response into two parts and are answering a question which was not asked. I qualified what was meant. This response is unwarranted. I think you make my point. Unless somebody spoon feeds you a completed concept you are ill equipped to evaluate on your own. That fortunately doesn't have any meaning with regard to the viablility of the concept. Again you make my point. You have no capability to explore physical models. You want mathematics. What you don't understand is you get mathematics after you have developed a general physical model. You must consider physical possibilities. When you have one that makes general sense - THEN - you develope the mathematics to see if it holds true. Part of physical modeling is saying "What if". Cute but you should really consider that the invariance of light is nothing more than an illusion caused by release of dimensional binding energy and that there is no relavistic mass change but only energy transfer efficiency decrease. Your mathematics couldn't differentiate the results. So you already have the math. The question is does it follow that these alternatives react the same in the physcal model as the assumptions made in Relativity. The answer is it appears so. Now what. You have the same observation and you have the mathematics. They are the same except one is a physical model and the other has no physical underpinning.
MacM: It is already very well understood that quantum mechanics and relativity have different domains of applicability. Relativity is the best desription we have of our universe on scales larger than the atomic level. Quantum mechanics is a great theory of the very small. You can't just modify a theory like Relativity in the piecemeal fashion you are obviously envisaging. It is not an ad hoc construction like the ones you come up with, but a self-consistent and detailed theory based on a minimum of postulates. It is therefore impermissible to add ad hoc modifications. What is needed to unify relativity and quantum mechanics is far more difficult. A complete overhaul is required, but (importantly) one which leaves both the present theories true in the appropriate limits (e.g. the theory of relativity must still hold on large scales). Why? Because we know that relativity and QM are correct, to the extent they have been tested. The situation is analogous to the replacement of Newton's laws by Einstein's. Newtonian physics can be derived from the theory of relativity, applied in the appropriate limits. With all due respect, I don't think you're qualified to judge that. You can't know that your model makes sense without maths. Maths is the most important tool of the physicist. All physical models are also mathematical models. Until you do the maths, all you have is a pie-in-the-sky idea. I doubt you can even define "dimensional binding energy". It's just a term you dreamed up. Your idea is useless. Since you HAVE no mathematics, I'd say my mathematics is more likely to do the job than yours.
And here I thought when Relativity goes into Black Holes, etc the singularity infinites were actually small and that producted the infinities. :bugeye: You make my point. You still talk about singularities predicted in Relativity when you now admit Relativity is not valid in that regime. so why defend relativity there? Oh, you are against AD HOC, then why support Dark Matter and Dark Energy? (That is not to agree my work is AD HOC BTW). So now you are claiming QM is AD HOC? A moment ago you claimed it was more valid than Relativity in that regime? So at least you could merge QM and Relativity on the issue of Planck Length and stop defending Relativity on Black Holes and Singularities since you seem to have agreed QM is more valid than Relativity on that scale. And so my arguement has been that Relativty can be applied over a range but not extrapolated to the extremes as it is. I think this thread shows where valid logic prevails on this issue. I initially misread your statement and thought you had referenced my work. But instead on re-reading it I can say I agree. So when are we going to explore the mathematics for these alternatives? Useless if you don't consider it and work with it, otherwise it could well be insight long awaited. And yes I guess I did just sort of dream that up, a bit like physicists have dreamed up Dark Matter and Dark Energy. I just hope when it turns out that I am right you remember the opportunity you thumbed your nose at. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You really should be more careful when speaking about others education. I have had considerable mathematics, including some calculus. But of course I am intelligent enough to admit that was 40 years ago and I have never used it and no longer even pretend to be up on math. But your statement is false and a slander. And I'm sure that is your opinion and one that I could agree upon. So does that make you king of Physical concepts. It doesn't seem so. Your forte' should be to take the insight I have given you and for you to explore, perhaps develope, the next generation of advancement in physics.
