 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / February 2006Relativity and You
http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 by Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist what do you think? Bishop > http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bishop You want to learn some relativity? Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html > http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bishop You want to learn some relativity? Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html > http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 > > by Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist > > what do you think? Complete bullshit. It is like stating the universe would not work if it were not for people being present and doing math. Total crap. > > http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > not for people being present and doing math. > Total crap. It came from the article "Einstein in a Nutshell" in: http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-04/features/einstein-in-a-nutshell/ background of Michio Kaku: http://www.mkaku.org/ Kaku finishes Ph.D. in Physics and Professor of University of New York. If the part about spin related to relativity is not true. How can he write a crap like that. Someone can explain? Bishop >> > http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 >> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Someone can explain? Again, Relativity is a map that has been used. For one to say it creates the reallity we see around us is stupid, and the only thing saying crap like that is good for is to sell books to relativist morons. > > > http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 > > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Someone can explain? Do a search for Spaceman's posting history and form your own judgement as to whether he is qualified to declare Kaku's work incorrect. Did you have a specific question about the claims on this graphic? "What do you think" is not a question. - Randy >> > http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 >> > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > If the part about spin related to relativity is not true. How > can he write a crap like that. Dont listen to spaceman. He knows less about physics than my cat. > Someone can explain? Like pretty much everyone he is entitled to his own opinions about subjects. You can either agree with him or disagree with him - the choice is yours. Just because of his position and education in physics doesn't mean he will always be correct. For example, I think he has terrible taste in clothes. > Dont listen to spaceman. That reminds me of the old.... Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! ROFLOL :) >> Dont listen to spaceman. > > That reminds me of the old.... > Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! I have no idea what you are talking about. >>> Dont listen to spaceman. >> >> That reminds me of the old.... >> Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! > > I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, You have never followed the yellow brick road. You simply got lost in rubber ruler land before you could. LOL >>>> Dont listen to spaceman. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yes, > You have never followed the yellow brick road. Oh right. Do you think you are the wizard of Oz now? > You simply got lost in rubber ruler land before you could. Yawn. >> http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > not for people being present and doing math. > Total crap. You appear to have misunderstood what it says. However, based on your other posts this doesn't surprise me. Don't bother replying. > Complete bullshit. > It is like stating the universe would not work if it were > not for people being present and doing math. > Total crap. Spitshit, Spaceshit, Spaceman, or whatever you call the little troll has quite the track record and is a registered crank at crank dot net. http://www.google.com/search?q=Spaceman+site%3Awww.crank.net For a few laughs try the Spaceman [spaceshit] Emulator http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/ > For a few laughs try the Spaceman [spaceshit] Emulator > http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/ That is accurate! How can we tell if it apart from the "real" spaceman. I suspect that emulator is more likely to pass the Turing test than spaceman ever is. >>http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > not for people being present and doing math. > Total crap. Spitshit, Spaceshit, Spaceman, or whatever you call the little troll has quite the track record and is a registered crank at crank dot net. http://www.google.com/search?q=Spaceman+site%3Awww.crank.net For a few laughs try the Spaceman [spaceshit] Emulator http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/ > http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 > > by Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist > > what do you think? The wording is pretty sad. The part about GPS failing is correct, and not completely incorrectly stated. The rest is very poorly worded indeed. The problem is the phrase "without relativity." It is used as though relativity were this whizzer new technology that we invented and applied to create such things as warm sunshine and molecular stability and electric motors. Quite the other way around. We use relativity as an explanation of why those things exist. They existed very long before we knew about relativity. Imagine it as "without the spherical shape of the Earth" or "without the wetness of water." Also, the picture of icicles hanging off the Earth as though it were a few cm across and hanging outside in an ice storm is pretty silly. Socks > http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 > > by Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist > > what do you think? Tiny white text on a dark gray backgroung = difficult to read. If you don't put up a presentable page, I won't even start reading it. Paul Cardinale > > http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Tiny white text on a dark gray backgroung = difficult to read. > If you don't put up a presentable page, I won't even start reading it. The readable view is obtained with this link: http://www.pbase.com/everydayrelativity/image/56576617/original Or by clicking "original" on the bottom of the page. - Randy >>>http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > - Randy Even the original "Bishop photos at pbase.com" is not easy to read. >> http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Paul Cardinale Not defending Bishop here as it annoyed me as well, but if curiosity gets the better of you choosing the "original" size makes it (almost) readable. However, there is nothing really groundbreaking there so only do it if you are really bored. > > http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Paul Cardinale try this new one (364K) http://www.pbase.com/image/56610412/original (if you still can't read it... i'll put a 1meg file). Need your expert opinion. Pls. focus on the lower right side specifically the one written "Without relativity, our bodies molecules would fall apart". Michio Kaku attributes it to particle spin which he relates to relativity. Did he goof up somewhere. I think it's related to Dirac relativistic equation which produced description of spin 1/2 particles like electrons. How come Dirac relativistic treatment of the Schroedinger Equation automatically produced the description of spin 1/2 particles. What does this exactly mean. Its still fuzzy concept for me. Bishop >> > http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 >> > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > spin 1/2 particles. What does this exactly mean. Its > still fuzzy concept for me. Is this image something you, yourself, wrote and you are asking us to validate it's scientific content? Or is this something you found and want to get feedback on? > >> > http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 > >> > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > validate it's scientific content? Or is this something you found and want to > get feedback on? I made it clear that the image is written by the famous theoretical physicist called Dr. Michio Kaku. Don't know if you knew him. I think what he is saying is this. Isn't it that as you accelerate a particle at high speed, its mass (or relativistic mass) increase. So what Dr. Kaku may be pointing out is that if relativity is "turn off" meaning in a universe where there is no changes in the relativistic mass at relativistic speed.. then there is no mechanism for E=mc^2 meaning mass is not interchangeable to energy. Likewise. In a universe where SR doesn't occur, particle spin may not exist. They are all somehow related. Isn't this what he is saying? If not. What. If wrong, why is he wrong?? Bishop >>>>>http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Bishop Well, we can explain spin as particles transforming under different representations of the Lorentz group, so in a sense there's a very fundamental connection between special relativity and spin. I don't think that implies you couldn't have spin without SR. There might be a complately different way to formulate it that works just as well in a Gallilean universe. > >>>>>http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > different way to formulate it that works just as well in a > Gallilean universe. Let's talk about E=mc^2 first as it is more obvious. Can you have E=mc^2 without SR? Let me elaborate. SR says that as you increase speed of a particle near c, its relativistic mass increase. This made Einstein conclude that energy is interchangeable to mass and vice versa. When the radium was seen to increase energy in seeming contradiction of the law of conservation of energy. Planck realized that Einstein e=mc^2 is literal and was so excited. Now supposed in a universe where SR doesn't occur and relativistic mass doesn't occur at relativistic speed, the rules of physics is such that mass can't be converted to energy. What do you think? Bishop >>>>>>>http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > occur at relativistic speed, the rules of physics is such > that mass can't be converted to energy. What do you think? Okay, first lets not talk about "relativistic mass". It's kindof a misnomer, oldfashioned, and invariably causes confusion at some point. Instead, let's talk about the relation E^2 = m^2 + p^2, using units where c = 1. This implies then that E^2 - p^2 = m^2 If we then regard the vector (E,px,py,pz), then it's magnitude is E^2 - p^2 = m^2. What does this mean though? Well it means that you can take a bunch of individual particles that are massless, like photons, and the *system* of particles has a mass. For example, photon A with momentum (20Gev,20Gev,0,0) and photon B with (20GeV,-20GeV,0,0) then the *system* has mass 40GeV. Okay, so why go through all this? Well, because it lends itself quite nicely to the idea of bound states have a different mass than the sum of the individual particles. So if the mass of a bound state is *greater* than the sum of the masses of the individual particles, then you can break the bound state and convert the "mass" into energy. That's what nuclear fission does. The sums of masses of the resultants is less than the nucleus as a whole. Now, there might be a way to explain binding energy and its connection to mass without using SR, but you can see that it fits quite naturally with the framework of special relativity. >> >>>>>http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617 >> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > as you increase speed of a particle near c, its > relativistic mass increase. Strictly speaking true but the issue is subtle and can lead to confusion - see the FAQ http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ In particular study http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html 'Of the two, the definition of invariant mass is much preferred over the definition of relativistic mass. These days, when physicists talk about mass in their research, they always mean invariant mass. The symbol m for invariant mass is used without the subscript 0. Although the idea of relativistic mass is not wrong, it often leads to confusion, and is less useful in advanced applications such as quantum field theory and general relativity. Using the word "mass" unqualified to mean relativistic mass is wrong because the word on its own will usually be taken to mean invariant mass. For example, when physicists quote a value for "the mass of the electron" they mean its invariant mass.' > This made Einstein conclude > that energy is interchangeable to mass and vice versa. I doubt Einstein concluded that. But if you can provide a reference then I will be will to look at it. > When the radium was seen to increase energy > in seeming contradiction of the law of conservation > of energy. Planck realized that Einstein e=mc^2 is > literal and was so excited. Sure rest mass is a form of energy - but that is not what you said which was 'energy is interchangeable to mass and vice versa.'. Learn precision in what you say. > Now supposed in a universe > where SR doesn't occur and relativistic mass doesn't > occur at relativistic speed, the rules of physics is such > that mass can't be converted to energy. What do you think? I think you should learn more actual physics and parrot less populist writings. Bill > Bishop Two aspirins will cure a headache -- the entire bottle will kill you. Mathematics is great for describing the universe and extracting some of its secrets but one must be careful and cautious about the over use of math. Applied math can easily extend to pure math and lead the theoretician up blind unrealisitic alleys. So is it with Kaku and his cohorts. They have lost sight of Occam's razor and reality. I think it's a travesty to use the Alice in Wonderland concepts of said overuse of math to razzle dazzle the rest of us. I think perhaps they also enjoy being set apart from the rest of us wallowing in reality. > Two aspirins will cure a headache -- the entire bottle will kill you. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > overuse of math to razzle dazzle the rest of us. I think perhaps they > also enjoy being set apart from the rest of us wallowing in reality. No. I'm beginning to believe that we are living in some kind of giant Matrix reality where programming is the heart of it all. Of course we are not talking of living inside a pentium IV but something more complex like a 15D computer. Some scientists even believe everything is just 2D and the programs are written in the surfraces and this 3D is just illusion or hologram. This is why it is possible that mathematics indeed describe reality and nothing more precisely because mathematics made up the software and program of the universe where we live in. Try to ponder on our entire theoretical framework from quantum mechanics to general relativity and only a Matrix reality model can explain it. You will also notice that 99% of the crackpots here want to model QM, SR, GR using mechanistic concepts. They may fail because there is no physical mechanism for anything. As an illustration. Just imagine a computer character for example mario brother figuring out how the block of wood is structured and the mechanisms for what made waves or particles. He couldn't find it because they are all just created by programs. Seriously I now really start to believe in the Matrix model of reality. This is one of the few things that make sense. Bishop > No. I'm beginning to believe that we are living in some kind of > giant Matrix reality where programming is the heart of it all. > Of course we are not talking of living inside a pentium IV > but something more complex like a 15D computer. Since at least the Englightment it was The Standard Thing in science to grab whatever successful technology of the day and try to represent reality in its terms. Current preoccupation with Reality As Algorithm/Computer/AI/whatever is just another manifestation of this. Invariably, a new technological breakthrough comes and Reality instantly becomes whatever that New Thing is. And, as always, people will think then they they are finally very close to solving fundamental questions (unlike - of course - those who preceded them). -- Jan Bielawski If you're looking for a physical model of quantum mechanics I suggest you see the monograph "On the Quantum as a Physical Entity" .Go to http://www.wbabin.net , Then go to "List of Authors" and click on Vertner Vergon. > If you're looking for a physical model of quantum mechanics I suggest > you see the monograph "On the Quantum as a Physical Entity" .Go to > http://www.wbabin.net , Then go to "List of Authors" and click on > Vertner Vergon. Goes to show you there are good suggestions and crappy suggestions. Oh, and self-aggrandizing suggestions. PD |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.