I try to remind myself of these facts every time my fancy-pants bike computer takes half an eternity to sync up with multiple satellites. Do I talk with satellites? No. That little thing does.
Waly, I look at intuitive in various grades. What may be intuitive within our respective specialties is not intuitive to the lay person. (I think that's in agreement with what you wrote) Which I think Clarke puts best in his 3rd law.
I do not expect QM, advanced mathematics, nor their respective sequelae to be intuitive to all but the most gifted, and only then after thorough study.
You mentioned 2 objects there: the "clock mechanism", the "time itself". You forgot the third one: the "human" to whom the clock is reporting to.
This is it. I personally think that people should not talk or mention the word "intuitive" without mentioning all of these, because we are on the internet, we are not a group of people with similar intelligence.
Eww, which url precisely? I have read 3 topics/headlines from the site and I read no science nor Physics nor Math, only DRAMAS! 😡 Don't worry about Math. I have learned Math in universities much more than average people have.
Watch PBS Online | PBS Video
I did some searching on the PBS site and these dramas sound right:
NOVA
Inside Einstein's Mind
NOVA
Einstein's Big Idea
So you think that you understand me and I don't understand you. But so long as what you said is from the books that I have read (Maxwell, Newton, Kirchoff, Gauss, Ampere, etc.), the chance is high that I understand you. OTOH, what I said, right or wrong, is not from any book I have read, so the chance is small that you understand me, especially if you're not ready with out-of-the-box thinking.
Oh yes I have. Many times before. But I'm open minded. There is possibility that I havent yet understood.
The point is, it has never been the point.
I have read them all thank you. The third one is something with "revealed" word in it. But I'm not going back to that site 😉
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I have read that the equations of general relativity describe the possibility of a worm-hole and a fair amount of theoretical work has been published on this topic. A worm-hole connects two different points in space. These two points may be separated by very large distances.
Entanglement is a situation where a pair of particles are connected and yet can be separated by very large distances. They are intimately connected - since the state of one particle is not independent of the other. Whilst QM allows a description of this connection we do not know how they are connected in space-time. Perhaps a worm-hole provides such a physical mechanism.
This may not be an area where they conflict - but if it is possible to show that both theories are connected rather than in conflict it may be possible to widen the understanding such that conflicts in other areas can be resolved.
Why do you persist in this confusion? The clock is not "reporting to" anyone, it is merely being a clock. Whether a human or a LGM or nobody looks at the clockface does not affect it; time dilation still happens. It is a property of the universe, not our observation of the universe.Jay said:
You are beginning to sound like one of those laymen who say "I don't understand it; it is too counter-intuitive for me, therefore those who claim to understand it must have got it wrong. My alternative explanation is better". Like the dental technician who once told me that QM must be wrong - all he knew about QM was what I had just told him over a cup of tea. He would probably have said the same to Feynman, although Feynman's explanation would have been much better than mine.
Science is just a tool for attempting to explain those things and others.
Some of those things may not exist as physical entities. Science is for explaining Physics and not for explaining Metaphysics.
The fact that you seem claim that science is faulty when it cannot explain those things raises some very serious questions about your understanding of it.
Agreed. Jay is beginning to sound like one of those who gives the philosophical answer and not the scientific answer to the test question about if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make sound?
The scientific answer is of course that the tree's fall makes sound waves whether anybody is there or not to hear them.
We hear the same nonsense from people that talk about "human observation" in the double-slit experiment in QM but don't have the faintest clue about any of it.
Sorry, but I'm not interested in that sort or style of deflection.
What you said was simply wrong, and from my position I can only say that this is due to your lack of understanding of even the basics of the topics at hand.
Jeezz, sometimes I'm really glad I cannot look into other people's heads.
I have just seen this comment now:
Science does not say that the natural world is all that exists, that would be philosophical naturalism.
Instead, we honestly recognize that we cannot investigate non-natural things, i.e. we cannot distinguish between fantasy, made up stuff, hallucinations etc. and claims about supernatural or miraculous effects ... This is methodological naturalism.
The best we can do with supernatural claims is to "disprove" them by pointing out logical contradictions* and contradictions with observations* from the real world, or attempt to show correlations with observations, but there is no way to confirm any supernatural causation.
There is no method to tell whether any of it is real or true.
*) But you can always make up some excuse that "fixes" the contradiction in hindsight. People even start to claim that logic goes out the window when you show them logical contradictions in their beliefs.
Science is demonstrably the most successful method humankind has ever developed to investigate claims about and acquire knowledge about the natural world.
Science does not say that the natural world is all that exists, that would be philosophical naturalism.
Instead, we honestly recognize that we cannot investigate non-natural things, i.e. we cannot distinguish between fantasy, made up stuff, hallucinations etc. and claims about supernatural or miraculous effects ... This is methodological naturalism.
The best we can do with supernatural claims is to "disprove" them by pointing out logical contradictions* and contradictions with observations* from the real world, or attempt to show correlations with observations, but there is no way to confirm any supernatural causation.
There is no method to tell whether any of it is real or true.
*) But you can always make up some excuse that "fixes" the contradiction in hindsight. People even start to claim that logic goes out the window when you show them logical contradictions in their beliefs.
Last edited:
Just to be killjoy, I could interpret just the opposite with a pendulum clock, as the period is about
T ≈ 2 π √(L/g)
I know that a pendulum clock doesn’t work in an inertial frame but that would ruin the joke. The point is that time, and not clocks, is what appear in equations.
Don't worry, it is just a units issue, in cgs units, Maxwell's equations are written as
∇ . D = 4 π ρ
∇ . B = 0
∇ x E + (1/c) ∂ B / ∂ t = 0
∇ x H – (1/c) ∂ D / ∂ t = (4 π/c) J
∇ . B = 0
∇ x E + (1/c) ∂ B / ∂ t = 0
∇ x H – (1/c) ∂ D / ∂ t = (4 π/c) J
For an isotropic and homogeneous medium, constitutive relations are
D = ε E
B = μ H
In vacuum
εo = μo = 1
Time is what a clock reads. 😛
And who needs units anyway. Certainly not mathematicians.
And who needs units anyway. Certainly not mathematicians.
Last edited:
Yes, you are probably right. Honestly, I have always tried to avoid getting involved in discussion about this topic. May be it is better if I just ask questions (Starting with the simple ones). Because you have explained the history of why Relativity theory exist, the question is: "what is the contribution of gravity on stellar aberration?"
No no no.
It is physics because you add a meaning, definition or description to the variables used in that equation. For example, t is a placeholder for time. You then don't test this by plugging in some number you dreamed about but by plugging in numbers from real clocks.
For example 10 ticks on my clock, 5 ticks on a clock that moves with relative v=0.866c. Voilà, it checks out.
Otherwise, if you never make that connection to reality, it's just some mathematical equation that could mean anything or nothing.
To say that something like that has some deeper meaning ... that would be philosophy.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.