To think that modern physics has done anything more then scratch the surface of the universe we live in is ridiculus. You have no reason to believe that Guass would change fields given the choice, you simply assume it to be true because it fits your view.
Gauss would have been in physics today, because that's what he was interested in. Gauss's kind of thinking is far from unusual in physics today; it's absurd to redefine anything good in physics as actually being "software thinking".
That's from the AC above me. I'm quoting him here cause he's right on the mark, but I can't mod him up for it.
I said already that the theory is considered a work in progress. The term progress implies that someone is trying to figure out the details.
I'm not sure what the point of that last statement was. Both those men were physicists. You're using brilliant physicists as examples of how physicists "can't see the forest for the trees"??
Computer Science is not physics, we need to remember that.
Wrong. It's quite possible for x to deviate - the dreaded cat hair on the mainboard, for example. Or, Intel has another "accident".
There is no such comparable situation in physics.
As to the "designing software" comment - in no way does being a physicist qualify someone to develop abstract models. There is a great deal of abstraction in this endeavor, and the door of "qualification" swings both ways.
Are you suggesting that software theorists are better at modeling physics then physics theorists? I think not. Each are qualified in their respective domains and no others.
The solution with the irrelevent factors will simply wash those factors out as the general case is evolved.
These theories don't have an n variable in them that you plug the desired number of dimentions into, it's a base assumption and changing it means reformulating the entire theory. The kinks don't "work themselves out".
Thos guys are physicists. But string theory is NOT an accepted theory in the physics community. Only the base has been developed. The exact equations have not been solved, the theories have not made any predictions, and those predictions have not been experimentally verified. This is why there is much talk in the string theory community about trying to experimentally verify the extra dimentions. The theory will never be excepted until that has happened.
You have to differentiate between accepted theories and theories that are still "under construction". They are not on even grounds.
I'm going to start responding in chunks because this is getting unwieldy...
The topic isn't physics; the topic is about creating a model of an abstract process, which (hopefully) has a real instance to compare against. Physicists play a part, but it is far from their normal domain - it's all toolsets, behaviors, and devined implications upon devined implications that'll never be experiementally shown. In other words, it's damned near a software project. Physicists are still a huge part of it, but by and large their "normal" skill sets are not appropriate to the techniques that are needed. Half of them still think that inductance and impededance are two different things, for chrissakes. This is what I mean by "abstraction" - or the ability to do it, for that matter. The physicist method allows for it, but does not generally condone it. According the the razor, the results are too messy and exceed the scope.
That is completely obserd. Of course it's what physicists are suited towards, it's their entire job description. And there's an entire branch of physics called theoretical physics that you're overlooking. Designing software doesn't come anywhere near qualifying you to work on physics.
Back to induction -
Step 1: Quark-head says "4 dimensions ain't enough. We're wrong, and need 5 for this model to work."
Step 2: Quark-head says "5 dimensions ain't enough. We're wrong, and need 6 for this model to work."
Step 3: Quark-head says "6 dimensions ain't enough. We're wrong, and need 7 for this model to work."
Step 4: Quark-head says "7 dimensions ain't enough. We're wrong, and need 8 for this model to work."...
Step 22: Quark-head says "25 dimensions ain't enough. We're wrong, and need 26 for this model to work."
Step 23: Quark-head says "26 dimensions ain't enough. We're wrong, and need 27 for this model to work."
No such situation has ever been encountered in the realm of experimental physics and in theoretical physics none of the theories that allow for more then 4 dimentions have ever been experimentally verified. Some have been disproven actually.
From the view point of *eventualities* - that's the word that physicists are required to disavow, because it precludes the concept of SA - we know that our view is always incomplete, and intend for it to be. The implication that you seek will not be present in any single step of the above 25 steps - but as you scroll through that anecdotle babble, the implication emerges from the whole. You claim we must show the pattern must continue; I claim you must show that the pattern will stop. Wrong 27 times in a row, you tell me where you'd place your money. Scientific Method says that they're correct relative to the scope of their observations. Eventualities demand that once a loser, always a loser... they've repeatedly shown that they cannot determine what the scope of observation needs to be, and *that* is the implication of the next step. The cycle will continue, and the induction holds. It's not about what the quark-head observes. It's about what *we* observe in the observer, and it's recursive. It's also exactly valid in a great many models, and (in those applications) will produce models that better match observation than any SA method will.
Science has not been wrong 27 times and counting on the number of dimentions. There has yet to be any empiricle evidence that science has been wrong even once on the number of allowed dimentions.
Consider the following, which a "physicist's method" will fail miserably at. This is not because anyone is dumb, or incompetent - it's merely because your methods are not universal as you claim. I'm a physicist. I've got 190 machines in my shop. In the many years I've had them, I've *never* had a power supply fail. Ever. Next week, I'm buying a new server to control our new quantum-flux-space-modulator. If it pukes, people die. For real. Question - how many power supplies should this new box have? My physicist method demands that it contain exact
As you said, I'm using a physicists definition of the scientific method. I think that is certainly appropriate considering that the topic of the moment is physics. Also I disagree that physicists don't abstract things enough. There are many levels of abstraction in physics going far beyond anything that we've discussed here. The fact that it hasn't been mentioned doesn't imply that it has never happened.
Secondly, concerning your induction argument; induction requires two things to be valid. The first is that you show evidence of a pattern of succession. You haven't done that. There have always been 3 space dimentions and one time dimention, they may not always have been called a dimention according to the definitions used at the time, but they have not changed. But, I'll grant you that while it has not been experimentaly verified there is evidence suggesting the existance of other dimentions, so we'll move on. Inductance requires that you not only show the beginning of a pattern, but that you show that any two succesive steps in that pattern imply that a third step must exist. In short you have to show that that the pattern must continue. You have no evidence of this.
There is a huge difference between the paradox of wave-particle duality and the paradox of breaking causality. The photon paradox is an observed and measured phenomonon that didn't mesh with the theory. But a break in causality is not an observed phenomenon. There is no reason to broaden the theory to include it.
It goes against scientific principles to assume the existance of something that you have no evidence for, like additional dimentions of time. Everything we have ever observed in this universe has shown causality. It's one of the fundamental assumptions of science that causality cannot be broken. Anyway, what your speaking of isn't actually a break in causality, it's an apparent break due to a forced perspective. But it's counterproductive to assume that the current predictions of a theory are incorrect due to reasons that have no experimental basis. Until the accepted theory can be shown incorrect by an observation that contradicts a prediction, or by an internal paradox that is unreconcilable, then there's no reason to disbelieve it's predictions.
If you start out with a system that looks like this:
--------A==>---------C----------<==B---------
(C is a stationary observer and A and B both have a velocity of.9_c towards each other)
From the point of view of C, A and B will be heading towards him at a speed of.9_c and because of the misconception reguarding how one adds relativistic speeds, C will think that B's speed relative to A is 1.8_c. He will think that A see's this:
--------A--------<==C------<======B---------
(A is stationary, C has a velocity of.9_c and B has a velocity of 1.8_c)
But that view is incorrect. The greater then light speed that C percieves is only an apparent speed, it doesn't violate the speed limit set by relativity. In actuallity A will see the following:
--------A--------<==C--------<====B---------
(A is stationary, C has a velocity of.9_c and B has a velocity of.9945_c)
That final number,.9945, is what you will obtain using the formula above.
I think you're missing the point. Science acknowledges that we might be wrong. That's why when someone figures out a way to test something they jump on it and test it. When we find evidence that we are wrong we start looking at how to fix things. But untill then you assume that everything is right and plow on. That's scientists tend to be sticklers about listing out all their methods. That way if one of those methods is proven wrong they know they need to take a second look at their work.
Breaking Causality results in paradox's. They make for wonderful science fiction, but in real science it means you did something you're not allowed to, like breaking causality.
You don't simply add velocities in relativity. If you measure speed as a fraction of the speed of light then the equation for the addition of velocities is: (u + v)/(1+uv)
Try it out, as long as the number you put in are in the interval (-1,1) the numbers you get out will always be in that same interval.
No, the bonds between the atoms in the poll are electromagnetic and governed by the same speed of light law as the rest of the universe.
This is a good way to think about why things Lorentz contract when accelerated. Because not contracting implies that both ends accelerated at the same time.
The equations of relativity do rule out the possibility of faster then light travel, but not for the above reasons. They do so for the fact that faster then light travel would break causality in the universe.
Actually, you can go faster then the speed of light, but it would require that you started out going that fast because you cannot travel at the speed of light nor can you cross over the speed of light.
Actually I believe your parent is correct about the distinction between invarient rest mass and relativistic mass. (1)
About your paradox concerning the 1g of matter, you're forgetting that "shooting a mass" off the surface of the earth doesn't change the total energy of the system, it merely interchanges kinetic energy with gravitational potential energy. When you let the mass fall back to earth you will make the same interchanging of energy, simply in the other direction. No energy has been added or subtracted from the system so there is no paradox.
And about light being affected by gravity: "any particles such as photons of light, move along geodesics in general relativity and the path they follow is independent of their mass." (2)
They actually don't do a remarkable job. Only the framework of string theory has been laid down. The theory can't make any predictions yet. Right now they've basically been able to show that with more work this theory has the potential to be the TOE, but it's not there yet. It's not a failing though. The theory is really in it's infantcy as theories go. It could turn out to be the answer, or it could end up failing. But there's a lot of work to be done before anyone will know for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
To think that modern physics has done anything more then scratch the surface of the universe we live in is ridiculus. You have no reason to believe that Guass would change fields given the choice, you simply assume it to be true because it fits your view.
That's from the AC above me. I'm quoting him here cause he's right on the mark, but I can't mod him up for it.
I'm not sure what the point of that last statement was. Both those men were physicists. You're using brilliant physicists as examples of how physicists "can't see the forest for the trees"??
Wrong. It's quite possible for x to deviate - the dreaded cat hair on the mainboard, for example. Or, Intel has another "accident".
There is no such comparable situation in physics.
As to the "designing software" comment - in no way does being a physicist qualify someone to develop abstract models. There is a great deal of abstraction in this endeavor, and the door of "qualification" swings both ways.
Are you suggesting that software theorists are better at modeling physics then physics theorists? I think not. Each are qualified in their respective domains and no others.
The solution with the irrelevent factors will simply wash those factors out as the general case is evolved.
These theories don't have an n variable in them that you plug the desired number of dimentions into, it's a base assumption and changing it means reformulating the entire theory. The kinks don't "work themselves out".
Thos guys are physicists. But string theory is NOT an accepted theory in the physics community. Only the base has been developed. The exact equations have not been solved, the theories have not made any predictions, and those predictions have not been experimentally verified. This is why there is much talk in the string theory community about trying to experimentally verify the extra dimentions. The theory will never be excepted until that has happened.
You have to differentiate between accepted theories and theories that are still "under construction". They are not on even grounds.
The topic isn't physics; the topic is about creating a model of an abstract process, which (hopefully) has a real instance to compare against. Physicists play a part, but it is far from their normal domain - it's all toolsets, behaviors, and devined implications upon devined implications that'll never be experiementally shown. In other words, it's damned near a software project. Physicists are still a huge part of it, but by and large their "normal" skill sets are not appropriate to the techniques that are needed. Half of them still think that inductance and impededance are two different things, for chrissakes. This is what I mean by "abstraction" - or the ability to do it, for that matter. The physicist method allows for it, but does not generally condone it. According the the razor, the results are too messy and exceed the scope.
That is completely obserd. Of course it's what physicists are suited towards, it's their entire job description. And there's an entire branch of physics called theoretical physics that you're overlooking. Designing software doesn't come anywhere near qualifying you to work on physics.
Back to induction - Step 1: Quark-head says "4 dimensions ain't enough. We're wrong, and need 5 for this model to work." Step 2: Quark-head says "5 dimensions ain't enough. We're wrong, and need 6 for this model to work." Step 3: Quark-head says "6 dimensions ain't enough. We're wrong, and need 7 for this model to work." Step 4: Quark-head says "7 dimensions ain't enough. We're wrong, and need 8 for this model to work." ...
Step 22: Quark-head says "25 dimensions ain't enough. We're wrong, and need 26 for this model to work."
Step 23: Quark-head says "26 dimensions ain't enough. We're wrong, and need 27 for this model to work."
No such situation has ever been encountered in the realm of experimental physics and in theoretical physics none of the theories that allow for more then 4 dimentions have ever been experimentally verified. Some have been disproven actually.
From the view point of *eventualities* - that's the word that physicists are required to disavow, because it precludes the concept of SA - we know that our view is always incomplete, and intend for it to be. The implication that you seek will not be present in any single step of the above 25 steps - but as you scroll through that anecdotle babble, the implication emerges from the whole. You claim we must show the pattern must continue; I claim you must show that the pattern will stop. Wrong 27 times in a row, you tell me where you'd place your money. Scientific Method says that they're correct relative to the scope of their observations. Eventualities demand that once a loser, always a loser... they've repeatedly shown that they cannot determine what the scope of observation needs to be, and *that* is the implication of the next step. The cycle will continue, and the induction holds. It's not about what the quark-head observes. It's about what *we* observe in the observer, and it's recursive. It's also exactly valid in a great many models, and (in those applications) will produce models that better match observation than any SA method will.
Science has not been wrong 27 times and counting on the number of dimentions. There has yet to be any empiricle evidence that science has been wrong even once on the number of allowed dimentions.
Consider the following, which a "physicist's method" will fail miserably at. This is not because anyone is dumb, or incompetent - it's merely because your methods are not universal as you claim. I'm a physicist. I've got 190 machines in my shop. In the many years I've had them, I've *never* had a power supply fail. Ever. Next week, I'm buying a new server to control our new quantum-flux-space-modulator. If it pukes, people die. For real. Question - how many power supplies should this new box have? My physicist method demands that it contain exact
Secondly, concerning your induction argument; induction requires two things to be valid. The first is that you show evidence of a pattern of succession. You haven't done that. There have always been 3 space dimentions and one time dimention, they may not always have been called a dimention according to the definitions used at the time, but they have not changed. But, I'll grant you that while it has not been experimentaly verified there is evidence suggesting the existance of other dimentions, so we'll move on. Inductance requires that you not only show the beginning of a pattern, but that you show that any two succesive steps in that pattern imply that a third step must exist. In short you have to show that that the pattern must continue. You have no evidence of this.
It goes against scientific principles to assume the existance of something that you have no evidence for, like additional dimentions of time. Everything we have ever observed in this universe has shown causality. It's one of the fundamental assumptions of science that causality cannot be broken. Anyway, what your speaking of isn't actually a break in causality, it's an apparent break due to a forced perspective. But it's counterproductive to assume that the current predictions of a theory are incorrect due to reasons that have no experimental basis. Until the accepted theory can be shown incorrect by an observation that contradicts a prediction, or by an internal paradox that is unreconcilable, then there's no reason to disbelieve it's predictions.
And causality doesn't only demand one axis. Do you have a referance for that? I've never heard that before.
--------A==>---------C----------<==B--------- .9_c towards each other)
(C is a stationary observer and A and B both have a velocity of
From the point of view of C, A and B will be heading towards him at a speed of .9_c and because of the misconception reguarding how one adds relativistic speeds, C will think that B's speed relative to A is 1.8_c. He will think that A see's this:
--------A--------<==C------<======B--------- (A is stationary, C has a velocity of .9_c and B has a velocity of 1.8_c)
But that view is incorrect. The greater then light speed that C percieves is only an apparent speed, it doesn't violate the speed limit set by relativity. In actuallity A will see the following:
--------A--------<==C--------<====B--------- (A is stationary, C has a velocity of .9_c and B has a velocity of .9945_c)
That final number, .9945, is what you will obtain using the formula above.
I think you're missing the point. Science acknowledges that we might be wrong. That's why when someone figures out a way to test something they jump on it and test it. When we find evidence that we are wrong we start looking at how to fix things. But untill then you assume that everything is right and plow on. That's scientists tend to be sticklers about listing out all their methods. That way if one of those methods is proven wrong they know they need to take a second look at their work.
Breaking Causality results in paradox's. They make for wonderful science fiction, but in real science it means you did something you're not allowed to, like breaking causality.
yes, you are correct
Try it out, as long as the number you put in are in the interval (-1,1) the numbers you get out will always be in that same interval.
This is a good way to think about why things Lorentz contract when accelerated. Because not contracting implies that both ends accelerated at the same time.
no
The equal and opposit force acts on the blazar the emitted the matter, not on us.
The equations of relativity do rule out the possibility of faster then light travel, but not for the above reasons. They do so for the fact that faster then light travel would break causality in the universe.
Actually, you can go faster then the speed of light, but it would require that you started out going that fast because you cannot travel at the speed of light nor can you cross over the speed of light.
About your paradox concerning the 1g of matter, you're forgetting that "shooting a mass" off the surface of the earth doesn't change the total energy of the system, it merely interchanges kinetic energy with gravitational potential energy. When you let the mass fall back to earth you will make the same interchanging of energy, simply in the other direction. No energy has been added or subtracted from the system so there is no paradox.
And about light being affected by gravity:
"any particles such as photons of light, move along geodesics in general relativity and the path they follow is independent of their mass." (2)
How exactly do you define an object moving backwards through time? What do you use as a referance?
You're right, it is. But violating causality is a very good reason why things can't go faster then light.
Definition of what, nitwit? You would think that while posting ina thread about editing you would try to make your statements at least coherent.
The part where you think it's the job of an editor to generally get out all of the errors, as opposed to actually getting out all of the errors.
I don't think he meant word by word backwards. It would be a little more reasonable go backwards by sentances or by paragraphs.
They actually don't do a remarkable job. Only the framework of string theory has been laid down. The theory can't make any predictions yet. Right now they've basically been able to show that with more work this theory has the potential to be the TOE, but it's not there yet. It's not a failing though. The theory is really in it's infantcy as theories go. It could turn out to be the answer, or it could end up failing. But there's a lot of work to be done before anyone will know for sure.