New in cosmology and fundamental physics

Sort:
Avatar of playerafar
Elroch wrote:

It would be interesting. I am not 100% sure he would have been very comfortable with it. He was very much an engineer, not a physicist.

EDIT: a little research confirms my guess. His views on both QM and relativity are those of someone whose ego exceeds his understanding. He wrongly called relativity pseudoscientific, and hated QM (in a far less developed way than Einstein tried to show it was not the true theory). His other eccentric views included denying the existence of the electron (and subatomic particles in general) - he felt atoms were single entities without parts.
The scientific facts show how badly wrong he was. For example, the quantum mechanical model of the hydrogen atom finds precise solutions that have precise energy levels, and these energy levels are extremely precisely verified via emission spectra, down to very subtle features. Quantum field theory (the more precise theory that is built on quantum mechanics to incorporate relativity and the way in which virtual particles make any system an infinite particle system) takes this further to achieve the most precisely verified results in science.
Likewise relativity is a very precisely tested theory, with GPS satellites relying on special and general relativistic corrections to clocks that are good enough to get locations to within a meter, and general relativistic time dilation was verified over a vertical height of just 1 mm recently (clocks run slower when deeper in a gravitational field).

I did a little research on Tesla too.
Interesting how he rejected relativity and quantum mechanics.
In contrast to Einstein who got relativity started but then rejected quantum mechanics.
In contrast to Planck who accepted relativity and reluctantly accepted Heisenberg's new quantum mechanics - witnessing the 'funeral' of the determinism Planck preferred while Planck was in fact the original pioneer of quantum mechanics in the first place. It seems.

Avatar of Elroch

Einstein kind of has credit for starting relativity AND quantum mechanics!

His 1905 work on the photoelectric effect revealed the quantisation of the electromagnetic field to the surprise of the scientific community, motivating the later work that explained this.

And he didn't stop there. See Einstein–Brillouin–Keller method.

Avatar of varelse1
Elroch wrote:

Einstein kind of has credit for starting relativity AND quantum mechanics!

His 1905 work on the photoelectric effect revealed the quantisation of the electromagnetic field to the surprise of the scientific community, motivating the later work that explained this.

And he didn't stop there. See Einstein–Brillouin–Keller method.

Except Einstein hated quantum mechanics. He said “God doesn’t play dice.”

Avatar of Elroch

He still contributed very significantly to QM. Even his attempt to show how to scientifically disprove it - the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen "paradox" (a misnomer) - is the basis of one of the most important successful tests of QM.

Of course, he would have been happier if the result of the experiment had been to disprove QM. But since he had been dead a while, he was neutral about it by the time the experiment was done by Alain Aspect.

Avatar of Sir-Fester-Duke-of-Earl

In spite of Einsteins contributions I question the mentality of anyone considering god as a factor in any respect.

Avatar of playerafar
varelse1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:

Einstein kind of has credit for starting relativity AND quantum mechanics!

His 1905 work on the photoelectric effect revealed the quantisation of the electromagnetic field to the surprise of the scientific community, motivating the later work that explained this.

And he didn't stop there. See Einstein–Brillouin–Keller method.

Except Einstein hated quantum mechanics. He said “God doesn’t play dice.”

Planck did 'work' regarding QM. Apparently.
Years before Einstein's 'miracle year' of 1905. Newton had one too I believe - in 1666 !!

Avatar of playerafar
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

so theyre slingshooting around the moon ? ...i tried to explain to L that u dont give urself up (gravitationally) the moon until ur really close it...they say. my cars been there.

L would you believe that Elon Musk put a car in orbit around the sun?
Yes. He is crazy enough to do a stunt like that and did do so.

Avatar of varelse1
playerafar wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

so theyre slingshooting around the moon ? ...i tried to explain to L that u dont give urself up (gravitationally) the moon until ur really close it...they say. my cars been there.

L would you believe that Elon Musk put a car in orbit around the sun?
Yes. He is crazy enough to do a stunt like that and did do so.

Was it a Mercury? Or a Saturn?

Or an Eclipse?

Avatar of Elroch
Sir-Fester-Duke-of-Earl wrote:

In spite of Einsteins contributions I question the mentality of anyone considering god as a factor in any respect.

He didn't - his "god does not gamble" is understood to be metaphorical, really meaning "the laws of nature are deterministic".

It would be very eccentric to think of personal intervention in every interaction of a particle, and I can guarantee he was not referring literally to that.

Einstein expressed a liking for Spinoza's pantheism, which really redefines the notion, replacing it by the entire natural world.

Later, in 1954, Einstein objected in a letter to mispresentation of his beliefs and clarified them by saying " If [there is] something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Avatar of Thee_Ghostess_Lola

u ppl will struggle w/ the afterlife right up to ur very last dying breath.

Avatar of Sir-Fester-Duke-of-Earl
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

u ppl will struggle w/ the afterlife right up to ur very last dying breath.

And you people will believe in anything to feel comfortable until your last dying breath and then will become worm food like the billions who preceded you.

Avatar of Sir-Fester-Duke-of-Earl

Rational Determinism: Everything is determined by the necessity of divine nature, meaning all events occur according to natural laws rather than chance or a divine plan.

Makes sense to.me.

The idea dates back to ancient Greek and Hindu philosophy. A little before Spinoza.

Avatar of Thee_Ghostess_Lola

ur just in denial that u can make something from nothing lol !

Avatar of playerafar
varelse1 wrote:
playerafar wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

so theyre slingshooting around the moon ? ...i tried to explain to L that u dont give urself up (gravitationally) the moon until ur really close it...they say. my cars been there.

L would you believe that Elon Musk put a car in orbit around the sun?
Yes. He is crazy enough to do a stunt like that and did do so.

Was it a Mercury? Or a Saturn?

Or an Eclipse?

It was a Tesla. And is.

Avatar of Thee_Ghostess_Lola

THE UNIVERSE WAS MADE FROM NOTHING !! ...yee !!

Avatar of TenGolf-TPOT

"yee"
Wise words

Avatar of Thee_Ghostess_Lola

THE UNIVERSE CREATED ITSELF !! ...doncha find that attractive ?

Avatar of Elroch

I think Ghostess has turned into a speculative cosmologist.

Avatar of Sir-Fester-Duke-of-Earl

Definitely a crack in nothingness. Or a crackpot as it were.

Avatar of playerafar
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

THE UNIVERSE CREATED ITSELF !! ...doncha find that attractive ?

But from itself. It does that constantly.
And we are creating ourselves from what we were seconds ago.
But this idea that something 'winks' into existence from absolutely nothing -
well it deserves maybe one extra 'wink' but no nod.
happy
idea: cause and effect. Causality.
For an effect to happen it needs something to cause it - whether the cause is known or not.
Or the effect. Or both.
Same with a cause event - needs an effect after it. Can't get 'nothing from something'.