Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Einstein appears to be right yet again...

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 dpastern

dpastern

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1275
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 11 September 2019 - 10:58 PM

an interesting article:

 

https://www.space.co...s-einstein.html

 

it seems that the more we test Einsteins GR and SR, the more we find that his mathematical answers seem to be on the money.  

 

Now if we can only manage to have a working model that combines GR and quantum physics...


  • retroman2 and Cali like this

#2 Cali

Cali

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 876
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2018
  • Loc: Bay Area

Posted 11 September 2019 - 11:00 PM

Yeah, the guy just can't lose.

 

- Cal


  • dpastern and retroman2 like this

#3 Taosmath

Taosmath

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 945
  • Joined: 21 May 2014

Posted 11 September 2019 - 11:04 PM

Yeah, the guy just can't lose.

 

- Cal

Oh, I don't know about that.  He was never really convinced by Quantum Mechanics.


  • Jim Waters, Tyson M, retroman2 and 1 other like this

#4 dpastern

dpastern

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1275
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 11 September 2019 - 11:11 PM

Oh, I don't know about that.  He was never really convinced by Quantum Mechanics.

I think it's more that it wasn't fitting in with GR more than anything else and this really frustrated Einstein.


  • PirateMike and retroman2 like this

#5 Cali

Cali

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 876
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2018
  • Loc: Bay Area

Posted 11 September 2019 - 11:22 PM

Oh, I don't know about that.  He was never really convinced by Quantum Mechanics.

I can hear Einstein now. "Well EX-Kuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuzzze ME!"

 

;>) Cal


  • payner, dpastern, precaud and 3 others like this

#6 fcathell

fcathell

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Tucson, AZ

Posted 11 September 2019 - 11:29 PM

I saw this article and GR seems to always be correct (because it is!). The problem with GR is that spacetime is mathematically defined as a continuum and quantum mechanics doesn't like that. I'm not sure that string theory, despite having some success in combining GR and QM, is the answer due to having to invoke many additional dimensions. There is some recent work that implies that the fabric of spacetime may result from quantum entanglement on a large scale (if I understand it right). 

 

Frank


  • dpastern, retroman2, wcoastsands and 1 other like this

#7 Cali

Cali

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 876
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2018
  • Loc: Bay Area

Posted 12 September 2019 - 12:12 AM

Oh, I don't know about that.  He was never really convinced by Quantum Mechanics.

The question I have to ask is what was the state of Quantum Mechanics when Einstein was at his peak compared to today? What other discounted theories were vying for consideration along with Quantum Mechanics back in the day? Even at an older age maybe he felt the discipline "wasn't there yet" and was awaiting more convincing evidence. He died in 1955 and look at all of the advances since then.

 

I think I can understand his skepticism. 

 

- Cal


Edited by Cali, 12 September 2019 - 12:29 AM.

  • retroman2 likes this

#8 fcathell

fcathell

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Tucson, AZ

Posted 12 September 2019 - 12:30 AM

Quantum mechanics had too many "spooky" characteristics for Einstein, however, his work on the photoelectric effect (which requires quantum mechanics) resulted in him winning the Nobel Prize in 1921. Quantum mechanics is a very successful and powerful mathematical tool for solving many of the problems in physics but it has some very weird "internal" consequences.  Think of it like a "machine" which you enter a problem at the input and you get an accurate result at the output. You then decide to look inside the machine to figure out how it works, and low and behold, none of the internal mechanisms make a bit of sense.  In fact, some are even contradictory. The machine even seems to imply that YOU are, in effect, influencing its solution.  This stuff worried Einstein and to this day, there are several philosophical theories as to why quantum mechanics (ie, the stuff in the "machine") behaves the way it does. Unlike Einstein, Heisenberg and a few others had no problem with this "weirdness".  It still exists today and despite its tremendous power to solve problem, we are really not much closer to figuring out why it works exactly the way it does. Compared to QM, relativity is actually much more of a "pragmatic" mathematical theory despite some rather non-intuitive initial concepts.

 

Frank

Tucson 


  • dpastern, dr.who, starcanoe and 5 others like this

#9 Jim Waters

Jim Waters

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ USA

Posted 12 September 2019 - 12:41 AM

I don't recall where I saw the article but some physicist was disappointed that the above didn't disprove Einstein's GR and SR.  They went on to say that it was only a matter of time before they did.


  • dpastern, PirateMike and retroman2 like this

#10 TrustyChords

TrustyChords

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 99
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2017

Posted 12 September 2019 - 12:48 AM

"When they compared the model with observation, the rate of precession matched, with only 5% uncertainty. The data was in perfect agreement with Einstein's theory."

 

If you predicted a 5% uncertainty then I suppose this is perfect. Otherwise, words are hard.


Edited by TrustyChords, 12 September 2019 - 12:49 AM.

  • retroman2 likes this

#11 PirateMike

PirateMike

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2586
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2013
  • Loc: A Green Dot On A Blue Sea

Posted 12 September 2019 - 12:50 AM

I don't recall where I saw the article but some physicist was disappointed that the above didn't disprove Einstein's GR and SR.  They went on to say that it was only a matter of time before they did.

Ya sure. Like I'll be waiting for that. wink.gif

 

Some persons just can't get over the fact that some other person can actually be right.

 

 

Miguel   8-)

 

.


  • Jim Waters, dpastern and retroman2 like this

#12 dpastern

dpastern

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1275
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 12 September 2019 - 01:19 AM

I don't recall where I saw the article but some physicist was disappointed that the above didn't disprove Einstein's GR and SR.  They went on to say that it was only a matter of time before they did.

 

Good luck with that.  Einstein's GR & SR have been proven to be on the money every single time that they've been tested (gravity waves, space time curvature, gravitation lensing, black holes bending space time to a point where not even light can escape, so on and so forth).  If we were to say Einstein's theories are all wrong, then we'd be in a total mess when it comes to modern physics - there's nothing else to replace it with that works!

 

The genius of Einstein's works aren't the maths, but the ideas themselves imho.  Einstein was able to think outside of the box, and then with some help, arrive at mathematical answers to said out of the box answers.  

 

"When they compared the model with observation, the rate of precession matched, with only 5% uncertainty. The data was in perfect agreement with Einstein's theory."

 

If you predicted a 5% uncertainty then I suppose this is perfect. Otherwise, words are hard.

Well, given that we're not directly observing said effects from up close and personal, there's bound to be a small degree of inaccuracy.  It's unavoidable.  We need more data, and more finer research tools at hand to be more accurate.  


  • payner, Jim Waters, starcanoe and 2 others like this

#13 TrustyChords

TrustyChords

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 99
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2017

Posted 12 September 2019 - 01:20 AM

The question I have to ask is what was the state of Quantum Mechanics when Einstein was at his peak compared to today? What other discounted theories were vying for consideration along with Quantum Mechanics back in the day? Even at an older age maybe he felt the discipline "wasn't there yet" and was awaiting more convincing evidence. He died in 1955 and look at all of the advances since then.

 

I think I can understand his skepticism. 

 

- Cal

As far as I've understood, Einstein figured that everything was deterministic if you zoomed in enough, and that quantum behaviors were only abstractions describing the observations of something we don't have the ability to (yet) resolve well enough to see. However, we only have ability to observe at a slightly higher level of resolution than what we wish to observe (or have access to manipulating effectively). So there will always be something finer (or unobservant) to what we know. This is the basis of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Einstein knew this, but didn't have the answers. We still don't exactly, although we have great theories. Theories that predict, which is really good. 

 

TLDR I don't believe QM has the answers even now that Einstein was looking for since he figured determinism at some level was an absolute which is fundamentally at odds with QM, strictly speaking. Obviously I could be wrong because what Einstein thought is probably unknown, and quantum mechanics is a lot more solid than I'm making it sound here.


Edited by TrustyChords, 12 September 2019 - 01:32 AM.

  • dpastern, retroman2 and Cali like this

#14 TrustyChords

TrustyChords

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 99
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2017

Posted 12 September 2019 - 01:25 AM

 

Well, given that we're not directly observing said effects from up close and personal, there's bound to be a small degree of inaccuracy.  It's unavoidable.  We need more data, and more finer research tools at hand to be more accurate.  

Right, but words have a more precise meaning in math/physics and juxtaposing "perfect" with a 5% inaccuracy without qualifying that you predicted a 5% inaccuracy just is poor. It happens a lot in crossover scientific articles, since again, words in the sciences often have literally different meanings than in every day usage. I was more being silly about pointing this out than having any real commentary on the accuracy of the science itself. My words aren't great either so there's that. lol.gif


  • dpastern and retroman2 like this

#15 dpastern

dpastern

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1275
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 12 September 2019 - 01:45 AM

Right, but words have a more precise meaning in math/physics and juxtaposing "perfect" with a 5% inaccuracy without qualifying that you predicted a 5% inaccuracy just is poor. It happens a lot in crossover scientific articles, since again, words in the sciences often have literally different meanings than in every day usage. I was more being silly about pointing this out than having any real commentary on the accuracy of the science itself. My words aren't great either so there's that. lol.gif

how many people actually read the science journal articles...  :p  I try and read them where possible, but much of the maths is beyond me in my advancing age of melting into dementia :p


  • retroman2 likes this

#16 Cali

Cali

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 876
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2018
  • Loc: Bay Area

Posted 12 September 2019 - 02:20 AM

Quantum mechanics had too many "spooky" characteristics for Einstein, however, his work on the photoelectric effect (which requires quantum mechanics) resulted in him winning the Nobel Prize in 1921. Quantum mechanics is a very successful and powerful mathematical tool for solving many of the problems in physics but it has some very weird "internal" consequences.  Think of it like a "machine" which you enter a problem at the input and you get an accurate result at the output. You then decide to look inside the machine to figure out how it works, and low and behold, none of the internal mechanisms make a bit of sense.  In fact, some are even contradictory. The machine even seems to imply that YOU are, in effect, influencing its solution.  This stuff worried Einstein and to this day, there are several philosophical theories as to why quantum mechanics (ie, the stuff in the "machine") behaves the way it does. Unlike Einstein, Heisenberg and a few others had no problem with this "weirdness".  It still exists today and despite its tremendous power to solve problem, we are really not much closer to figuring out why it works exactly the way it does. Compared to QM, relativity is actually much more of a "pragmatic" mathematical theory despite some rather non-intuitive initial concepts.

 

Frank

Tucson 

Drag. I think I will fill my glass with wine, fire up my 'Lil scope, and resume pondering what may be.

 

- Cal


Edited by Cali, 12 September 2019 - 08:32 AM.

  • dpastern, retroman2 and TrustyChords like this

#17 fcathell

fcathell

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Tucson, AZ

Posted 12 September 2019 - 09:45 AM

I forget what university he is/was associated with, but a fairly prominent physicist named Dicke has spent most of his life trying to put holes in GR.  Needless to say, he has miserably failed. There are a few others I'm sure that are in his "group".

 

Frank


  • dpastern likes this

#18 starcanoe

starcanoe

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2013
  • Loc: Gulf Coast, Panhandle of Florida

Posted 12 September 2019 - 10:08 AM

Yeah, the guy just can't lose.

 

- Cal

 

Ironically....I was camping once and a had a rather nasty run of bad weather so I hung out at the local university library for a couple of days. Happened to run across a book about philosophy/debacles of science/history. Way back in the day they were measuring some physical property (related to particle physics if I recall correctly).  The measurements were extremely noisy...but some theorist (and folks who just like elegance in such things) were convinced it was something "nice" like 2 times Pi times something else or the like. A lot of smart folks got on that bandwagon...and IIRC Einstein was one of them....in the end it was nothing like that....kinda like cold fusion.....everybody tried to forget it eventually :)



#19 fcathell

fcathell

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Tucson, AZ

Posted 12 September 2019 - 11:41 AM

You know, that whole cold fusion thing with Pons and Fleishmann (I think that was the pair) sure went away fast. I forgot what the final conclusion by their peers was.  Reading too much into the data or fudging the data I suppose.

 

FC



#20 Cali

Cali

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 876
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2018
  • Loc: Bay Area

Posted 12 September 2019 - 12:51 PM

You know, that whole cold fusion thing with Pons and Fleishmann (I think that was the pair) sure went away fast. I forgot what the final conclusion by their peers was.  Reading too much into the data or fudging the data I suppose.

 

FC

I remember reading (I think) it was two MIT students who ran up to their dorm room and tried to replicate the Cold Fusion experiment upon hearing the initial reporting. - They failed.

 

Undeterred, two University of Chicago physics students, participating in the annual U of C  Scavenger Hunt for 1999 completed the following task in their dorm room:

 

Item 240. A breeder reactor built in a shed, and the boy scout badge to prove credit was given where boy scout credit was due. [500 points]

 

- "Sure enough, physics majors Justin Kasper and Fred Niell built a plutonium-producing reactor in a single day using scrap aluminum and carbon sheets. To get the radioactive element, the pair collected Thorium powder from the inside of vacuum tubes, which the reactor turned into trace amounts of weapons-grade uranium. An alarmed nuclear physicist verified the device’s authenticity, and the team came in second place."

 

Other tasks from the University of Chicago Scavenger Hunt of 1999 included the following:

 

70.   Break a world record. Provide proof, including the old record. [300 points]

108. Flight attendants. In uniform. [40 points per attendant]

121. A Hari Krishna. [40 points. 5 bonus points for a Hairy Hari Krishna]

145. The package, the postage, the person, and the proof that the person was mailed in the package with the postage. [330 points]

169. A recruitment letter from every branch of the armed forces. [5 points per branch. 15 points bonus if the letters are all to the same person]

178. Attend a classical-music performance wearing full armor and prove it. [100 points]

263. A Berkshire Hathaway stock certificate. [250 points]

290. Bile. [9 points]

309. One pint of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream (but of course, from the factory...in Vermont. Prove with receipt.) [40 points]

 

For the complete 1999 University of Chicago (SCAV) Scavenger Hunt list, and all other years, I'll leave that up to your Google-Fu, assuming you haven't located them already ...

 

- Cal


Edited by Cali, 12 September 2019 - 01:46 PM.

  • dpastern likes this

#21 Chucke

Chucke

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2010
  • Loc: AZ

Posted 12 September 2019 - 09:56 PM

Maybe Einstein was a time traveler from the future.  Stanislaw Lem wrote a story about how many of humanity's great minds were actually time travelers left stranded in the past by a time machine accident.



#22 Ken Watts

Ken Watts

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2016
  • Loc: Sun City, Az

Posted 12 September 2019 - 11:08 PM

Well now, I read two books by Dr. Hawking over the summer.... Now I have that same feeling.  Why am I here being totally awed by a lot of VERY smart people?  Thanks to all the contributors to this thread!



#23 fcathell

fcathell

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Tucson, AZ

Posted 12 September 2019 - 11:24 PM

Another incredible person was James Clerk Maxwell.  He studied Michael Faraday's experimental notes and his concepts of electric and magnetic "fields" and then used the vector differential equations from fluid flow to describe electromagnetism. Maxwell's equations were the results.  Those 4 basic equations describe the whole of electromagnetism and were versatile enough and in a general form that Special Relativity was easily integrated with them (covariant form) so that the fields could be described under relativistic conditions. 

 

Frank


  • TrustyChords and Cali like this

#24 Cali

Cali

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 876
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2018
  • Loc: Bay Area

Posted 13 September 2019 - 02:32 AM

Before entering a Mall, I always place my IPhone in a Faraday Cage (Blue Tooth reception _always_ disabled).

 

If you have a Mico Wave oven worth its salt, you can achieve the same by placing the IPhone into it.

 

NOTE: DO NOT TURN ON the micro wave oven while IPhone is inserted.

 

Sheesh!

 

- Cal


Edited by Cali, 13 September 2019 - 02:39 AM.


#25 fcathell

fcathell

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Tucson, AZ

Posted 13 September 2019 - 10:51 AM

That would be a good experiment Cal.  Phone a friend then put the IPhone in the uWave, turn it on, and have your friend tell you what he heard (when he calls you on your NEW IPhone!

 

FC




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics