On the controversy of physics

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » On the controversy of physics

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next

Author

Message

Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:08 am

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the majority
view, held by most physics professors in the country. Since we live in
a democracy, majority views should dominate and the goal of this post
is not to challenge this dominance. The goal of this post is to point
out that the common view that a lot of big names in physics such as
Einstein, Bell, de Broglie, and Schrodinger, disagreed with the
Copenhagen interpretation is a massive understatement. Einstein did
not just disagree with it, he repeatedly said on many occasions that
he "did not take it seriously". "did not take it seriously" is a
euphemism for his thinking that the view currently held by the
majority of professors around the country about one of the most
important theories in physics is (sorry) BS. Bell, they guy who
authored the Bell inequalities which led to the dominance of the
Copenhagen interpretation also did not just disagree with the majority
view... he called it "immoral". "immoral" is a euphemism for (I REALLY
APOLOGIZE)... pornographic. So the goal of the post is to challenge
the "controversy" qualification and claim that it is more like a
scandal than a controversy. Actually more like a family scandal where
in this case Einstein is the drunk grandpa making unacceptable
comments and everyone is trying to hush him (don't take that last
comment seriously).

How is this related to relativity? The majority of physicists do agree
with Einstein on that General Relativity is THE most beautiful theory
of physics ever written. A huge field of research now is of course
that of trying to quantize GR. This, to Einstein would amount to the
most subversive of conspiracies. He gave us the most beautiful theory,
and how do we show are appreciation? By submitting it to what he
thought was the most ridiculous of theories... mindless quantization!
I plead that people trying to mindlessly quantize GR pause and try to
think of a more clever way of joining GR with quantum mechanics one
that would also solve the measurement problem.

Eric Gisse

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:48 pm

Guest

On Apr 27, 11:08 am, babalu...@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

Quote:

Bell, they guy who
authored the Bell inequalities which led to the dominance of the
Copenhagen interpretation also did not just disagree with the majority
view... he called it "immoral". "immoral" is a euphemism for (I REALLY
APOLOGIZE)... pornographic. [...]

Probability makes me hot.

Dono

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:23 am

Guest

On Apr 28, 9:06 am, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:

Quote:

We may need something like this.

"Modelling and Generating Complex Emergent Behaviour"http://www.users.on.net/~kirsty.kitto/papers/02whole.pdf

Kirsty Kitto is Rag Cahill new wife (a husband-wife crackpot team).
Which one of the two are you ?

Steve Bell

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:28 am

Guest

<babaluyee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:38d860c8-e0c3-4cae-8452-e3d0ae1e0f44@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

Quote:

I think think is one the clearest, to-the-point posts I have read on this
list, bar none.

Steve Bell

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:12 am

Guest

On Apr 27, 2:08 pm, babalu...@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:

Well, actually, if it were just a matter of esteemed experts arguing,
with the surviving theory being the product of one group
overwhelmingly convincing the bulk of another group, then you'd be
right -- it'd be just a family scandal, a political brouhaha, a
corporate power fight.

But fortunately, there is a simple recourse that physicists use. What
they do is they say, "OK, let's just *suppose* that you're right for a
second. Then the theory you're proposing would also suggest that under
certain circumstances, we'd be able to perform an experiment and see
such-and-such and NOT so-and-so. I don't believe for a second that
you'd see such-and-such. Everything I've learned tells me the answer
will be so-and-so." And then the experiment is performed and the
matter is settled. And in fact, Einstein and Bell both did this --
though they didn't believe the Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics
and they didn't believe in quantum entanglement, they proposed the
idea of the experiment and they calculated what the result would be if
they were wrong and what it would be if they were right. Then, in a
set of experiments initiated by Aspect et al., the measurement was
actually done, and lo and behold, Einstein had gambled wrong. Now, the
thing to note is that, even though Einstein was wrong about what the
result would be, he thought about it long enough to propose the
experiment that would prove him wrong.

Quote:

How is this related to relativity? The majority of physicists do agree
with Einstein on that General Relativity is THE most beautiful theory
of physics ever written. A huge field of research now is of course
that of trying to quantize GR. This, to Einstein would amount to the
most subversive of conspiracies.

Well, to tell you the truth, he would have seen the experimental
evidence in support of quantum mechanics by now, so I'm fairly sure he
would have changed his mind on that. Note that Einstein also did not
believe in black holes, which were a direct consequence of his own
theory. Neither did Johnny Wheeler, who in fact coined the term "black
hole". He thought the whole notion of unstoppable gravitational
collapse, infinitely dense matter, and a spacetime singularity was
just ugly as all get out. But, after a while, he convinced himself he
was wrong about that, too, and then he worked like crazy to understand
them better.

Quote:

He gave us the most beautiful theory,
and how do we show are appreciation? By submitting it to what he
thought was the most ridiculous of theories... mindless quantization!
I plead that people trying to mindlessly quantize GR pause and try to
think of a more clever way of joining GR with quantum mechanics one
that would also solve the measurement problem.

Surfer

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:18 am

Guest

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:08:26 -0700 (PDT), babaluyee@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:

We may need something like this.

"Modelling and Generating Complex Emergent Behaviour"
http://www.users.on.net/~kirsty.kitto/papers/02whole.pdf

<Extract>

What began as an examination of the quantum measurement problem
quickly increased in scope to the foundations of quantum mechanics,
then again to fundamental physics in general, before shifting its
emphasis to complex systems.

<End extract>

Dono

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:27 pm

Guest

On Apr 28, 10:14 pm, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:

Quote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:23:50 -0700 (PDT), Dono <sa...@comcast.net
wrote:

Kirsty Kitto is Rag Cahill new wife (a husband-wife crackpot team).
Which one of the two are you ?

Don't be jealous Dono,

I am sure you'll find a compatible partener one day--probably a
porcupine Smile

Which one are you? Rag, Kirsty or the porcupine?

Bill Hobba

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:37 pm

Guest

<babaluyee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:38d860c8-e0c3-4cae-8452-e3d0ae1e0f44@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

Quote:

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the majority
view, held by most physics professors in the country.

Most - not all. Many, many hold to a different interpretation. So what?

Thanks
Bill

Steve Bell

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:51 pm

Guest

"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:QZuRj.5921$ko5.1192@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Quote:

babaluyee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:38d860c8-e0c3-4cae-8452-e3d0ae1e0f44@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the majority
view, held by most physics professors in the country.

Most - not all. Many, many hold to a different interpretation. So what?

Thanks
Bill

Hi Bill,

I personally believe this a tremendously important issue, that is, what
philosophy a person holds towards interpreting the equations of QM. Some
particular philosophy influences a person's belief about accepting things
like wave function collapse, etc.

Steve Bell

Surfer

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:26 am

Guest

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:23:50 -0700 (PDT), Dono <sa_ge@comcast.net>
wrote:

Quote:

Kirsty Kitto is Rag Cahill new wife (a husband-wife crackpot team).
Which one of the two are you ?

Don't be jealous Dono,

I am sure you'll find a compatible partener one day--probably a
porcupine Smile

Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:51 am

On Apr 29, 9:30 am, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:

Quote:

Which one are you? Rag, Kirsty or the porcupine?

None of the above. I am just a software engineer who likes to read
physics papers

I don't believe it:

-you are too intimately involved ONLY with Cahill's ideas
-the only thing you ever comment is the Cahill/Kitto papers
-you repeat exactly their mistakes
-you have been lying, cheating, twisting the facts too long on this
forum to have any credibility

There are two more members of the "Progress in Physics" group, so you
are one of the group members, fishing for comments from the
mainstream. The sad thing is that you don't apply any of the valid
criticism you have received.

Mike

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:11 am

Guest

On Apr 27, 3:08 pm, babalu...@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:

I plead that people trying to mindlessly quantize GR pause and try to
think of a more clever way of joining GR with quantum mechanics one
that would also solve the measurement problem.

First, GR and QM can never be "joined". In GR G = G and h = 0. In QM g
= 0 and h = h.

The best you can do "joining" is to get a theory of nothing instead of
a theory of everything.

Now, I commend you for your post:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

Mike

Surfer

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:42 am

Guest

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:27:15 -0700 (PDT), Dono <sa_ge@comcast.net>
wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 28, 10:14 pm, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:23:50 -0700 (PDT), Dono <sa...@comcast.net
wrote:

Kirsty Kitto is Rag Cahill new wife (a husband-wife crackpot team).
Which one of the two are you ?

Don't be jealous Dono,

I am sure you'll find a compatible partener one day--probably a
porcupine :-)

Which one are you? Rag, Kirsty or the porcupine?

None of the above. I am just a software engineer who likes to read
physics papers.

Steve Bell

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:48 pm

Guest

"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:db425ac7-4124-45ea-bf3a-4ecf16d35100@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 27, 3:08 pm, babalu...@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:

I plead that people trying to mindlessly quantize GR pause and try to
think of a more clever way of joining GR with quantum mechanics one
that would also solve the measurement problem.

First, GR and QM can never be "joined". In GR G = G and h = 0. In QM g
= 0 and h = h.

The best you can do "joining" is to get a theory of nothing instead of
a theory of everything.

Now, I commend you for your post:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

Mike

I personally believe the route taken now to merge GR and QM is doomed to
failure because GR is a fundamentally deterministic theory of motion and QM
is a fundamentally stochastic theory of motion. The true physical
characteristic of motion is either one or the other. I can't see how it
fundamentally could be both. I don't think god (if there is one) is that
ambiguous <g>.

Steve Bell

Surfer

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:38 pm

Guest

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:51:45 -0700 (PDT), andrewgeorges93@gmail.com
wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 29, 9:30 am, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:

Which one are you? Rag, Kirsty or the porcupine?

None of the above. I am just a software engineer who likes to read
physics papers

I don't believe it:

-you are too intimately involved ONLY with Cahill's ideas

I have also been investigating MOND and Scale Relativity.
At the current time MOND is at an empirical stage--there is no
underlying theory to explain why it works. However astronomers are
using MOND to make useful predictions.

Scale Relativity is very interesting from a theoretical point of view.
It is essentially based on the simple assumption that space-time
geodesics are continuous but not differentiable. From that simple
assumption it follows that geodesics in space-time are fractal. From
that it follows that particle motion along geodesics must jitter. That
is, the average forward motion is a result of motion in both
directions.
This gives us two components of motion, the representation of which
requires a complex value. Hence from a very simple assumption, we get
the complex wave function of quantum mechanics. So there are papers
such as:

A scale-relativistic derivation of the Dirac Equation
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210027

Scale calculus and the Schrodinger equation
http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0211071

That seems very powerful to me.

However, Scale Relativity does not explain where space-time comes
from. For that we need a pregeometric theory.

This where Process Physics first attracted my interest. Process
Physics predicts the generation of a dynamical 3-space with
topological defects. This gives space and matter in an expanding
universe.
The topological defects are sinks for 3-space, so 3-space flows into
matter. The geometry of a radially inward flow causes the acceleration
of the flow to be described by an inverse square law. So the
acceleration matches the acceleration we know as gravity.
Outside matter, the acceleration is related to flow velocity by

g = del v/del t + (v.nabla) v

This allows a constant acceleration field to be produced by a time
varying velocity field.

More specifically, it appears the above has wave solutions with waves
upon waves, thus giving a general solution a fractal structure.

So Process Physics predicts a dynamical 3-space, flowing in such a way
that the velocity field has a fractal wave structure.

Now if one converted this to a space-time representation, wouldn't one
end up with something very similar to the fractal space-time of Scale
Relativity?

If the similarity is sufficiently close, then Process Physics may
provide a theoretical basis for the fractal space-time of Scale
Relativity.

There is also a relation between Process Physics and MOND. Both can
account for galaxy rotation rates without the need for dark matter.

However, whereas MOND offers empirical formulae that seem fairly easy
to use, Process Physics requires flow equations to be solved using
numerical methods. So astronomers will probably prefer to continue to
use MOND. However, it may turn out that Process Physics is the
underlying theory that also explains why MOND works.

The above relationships are my own ideas. I have not seen MOND or
Scale Relativity mentioned in any Process Physics papers.

Quote:

-the only thing you ever comment is the Cahill/Kitto papers

From time to time I have mentioned Scale Relativity. However Process

Physics is being more eventful.

Quote:

-you repeat exactly their mistakes
-you have been lying, cheating, twisting the facts too long on this
forum to have any credibility

There are two more members of the "Progress in Physics" group, so you
are one of the group members, fishing for comments from the
mainstream.

Not everyone here is mainstream. I also like to communicating with
non-mainstream subscribers.

Quote:

The sad thing is that you don't apply any of the valid
criticism you have received.

I take constructive criticism seriously, but it has not yet revealed a

fatal flaw in Process Physics. Consider the recent criticism of the
Miller data.

Because Process Physics predicts a fractal velocity field for
dynamical 3-space, the fluctuations in the Miller data can be
attributed to fractal fluctuations in that field.

If one does that, then the way Miller analysed his data simply gives
you a fluctuating velocity vector just as was predicted by theory.

Eg Fig 4 in
"Resolving Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Anomalies with Measured Light Speed
Anisotropy"
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Cahill_flyby.pdf

shows the component in the plane of a ground level interferometer
fluctuating in magnitude from 150 km/s to 580 km/s.

These large fluctuations are disconcerting at first sight, but they
are probably due to the interaction between the interstella flow and
the local flow into the earth that occurs at ground level.

But in spite of such fluctuations, it was possible to calculate, from
the ground based observations, an overall average flow of about 415
km/s

That result was first provided (so far as I can tell) in
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0306196

Now, nearly five years later, it turns out that light speed anisotropy
due to velocities in the range 420-450 km/s can completely account for
the spacecraft earth flyby anomalies.

This is in remarkable concordance with the earlier calculated average
velocity at ground level. But another implication of the concordance
is that there is less fluctuation of velocity away from earth, than
there is at ground level.

That is also something else we would expect from the theory.

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:46 pm Science Forum Index