Relativity Question

Originally posted by adam warlock
Do you assume that scientific explantions have to be straightforward intuitive? If the world doesn't fit our view it isn't the world who is wrong it is our view of it. If one wants straightforward explanations you have aristotelic physics. The only problem with it is that the world doesn't follow it.

0.75c+0.75c is not 1.5c because space and time are ng naive won't take us anywere if we truly want to understand what's going on around us.

My goodness! Where in the world did you gain any idea that I want the universe to 'be' as I want it to be. Quite the contrary. I would be absolutely astounded if the universe is anything like ANY human being thinks it is at this time in our infancy.

For example, I see no reason to think that we have ANY understanding of chaos theory as it relates to making Feynman diagrams. Until we understand simple little things like "reality", we can't even claim to understand the universe.

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/feynman.html



So when you ask that question what you're really asking is why isn't Nature how I would like it to be.
No. When I ask that question, I am hoping somebody can TELL me when, where, why and how. I can parrot what Einstein has shown us, but I can't reconcile quantum mechanics to relativity. I do not want simplistic. You seem to take umbrage at the idea that .... well, I don't know what has you upset.

But what people really need to put on their heads is that not all explanations need to be intuitive. The world doesn't have to bend at our will. It is what it is. Being naive won't take us anywere if we truly want to understand what's going on around us.

I agree with this, and if my post implied that ANYTHING in this universe can or will ever bend to our will, then I said it poorly. I can't see that I was naive in any way. If you can point out with an example any errors or instances of naiveté, then I would appreciate it. My post was more to illustrate HOW LITTLE I personally understand "the universe and reality and everything". If it seemed to you that I was posting the "absolute definition" of time/space, I apologize.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
My goodness! Where in the world did you gain any idea that I want the universe to 'be' as I want it to be. Quite the contrary. I would be absolutely astounded if the universe is anything like ANY human being thinks it is at this time in our infancy.

For example, I see no reason to think that we have ANY understanding of chaos theory as it relates to ...[text shortened]... to you that I was posting the "absolute definition" of time/space, I apologize.

I replied to Fabian even tough my post was to everybody. Now you're giving me the trouble to actually go and read all of this thread and see what you said so far.
Catch you in a bit.

Originally posted by adam warlock
I replied to Fabian even tough my post was to everybody. Now you're giving me the trouble to actually go and read all of this thread and see what you said so far.
Catch you in a bit.

lol

Sorry. I didn't read the header correctly. It was mine, but used by him through you.

My bad! My bad. As you were. have a good one.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
lol

Sorry. I didn't read the header correctly. It was mine, but used by him through you.

My bad! My bad. As you were. have a good one.

Now that I've read what you said:
The concept of relativistic mass is getting dated this days. I still think it is a usefull concept but many physicists disagree with me.
If I were you I would say to people that first of all we have the two postulates of special relativity and all experimental data so far tell us that they are true. Then we have some operational definitions of what measuring time intervals and lenght means and why we should be very careful on when we make such measurements. After this the whole body of special relativity follows. And the law of velocity addition is just there. Now of course our postulates could be wrong and so the results we have arrived to can be wrong but then we know that we have a lot of other predictions and they all come right. So Nature must be very petty to play with us in this way. So we trust that we aren't very wrong and that special relativity is a nice way to describe how things go around us. Of course we still have to deal with applicability.

When I talked about naivety I was refering to people who aredisturbed with special relativity not conforming with their world view. For me that's naive and it gets under my skin. don't ask me why it just does. 😕

About chaos theory and Feynman diagrams I have nothing to say. They both are way out of my scope of knowledge and I'm not even sure that I understood what you said. I have some skin deep knowledge of that are and when this happens I usually refrain from talking. Complex Systems and High energy physics aren't the things i'm most confortable speaking about. Yes I had those courses on my undergraduation and I passed them but I feel like they aren't my thing.

And about what reality means: That could be a very fun topic to discuss face to face but online makes it much harder and very much tme consuming. So I'll side step it. 😛

Let me first say that my posting was not a criticisms about relativity, not at all. Relativity works until it reaches the area where quantum theory kicks in.
I have no criticism against StarValleyWy either. He knows what he's talking about.

My posting was about the very word of institution. I object that the theory of relativity really is intuitive. I've tested it to my Grandma, my Grandson, the girl in the local store, and some others, and all these people say that the have trouble to understand it, and some of it seems plain wrong. Alas, contra intuitive.

For mathematicians, physicists, and other specialists in the subject find it flawless so there is nothing wrong with the theory itself. But you have to grow that intuition to fit the theory because relativity theory is not intuitive by its nature.

Is this funny? No.
Even in mathematics there are a lot of contra intuitive-postulates. Like
(*) there are as many squares as there are cubes among the integers,
(*) that in the roulette when red has arrived 10 times the probability that red will reshow the 11th time is higher than black (or the opposite),
(*) that between every pair of real values, no matter how close, there is always at least one or more, even infinite number of rational values,
and so on.

So there is no funny with any theory having contra-intuitive elements. We should be aware of that, only because we fluently deal with mathematical formulae with certain results, there is no law against them being contra-intuitive. It's natural.

"My posting was about the very word of institution."
should be read
"My posting was about the very word of intuition."
Sorry for all confusion induced...
(Damn Word spelling tool)

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Let me first say that my posting was not a criticisms about relativity, not at all. Relativity works until it reaches the area where quantum theory kicks in.
I have no criticism against StarValleyWy either. He knows what he's talking about.

My posting was about the very word of institution. I object that the theory of relativity really is intuitive. I ...[text shortened]... ulae with certain results, there is no law against them being contra-intuitive. It's natural.

Yeah but all I'm saying is that intuitive is really learned. Nowadays people might find intuitive that the Earth revolves around the world, but if we think about it what's intuitive is the other way around. And intuitive can't be always our guiding star to understand what's around us. I used get in arguments with my colleagues because they were always complaining how not intuitive quantume mechanics is. My reaction is: Who are us to say that the world has to be immediately understable by us? I always told them that it was pretty arrogant for them to say such things. Quantum Mechanics is the best thing we have by far and of course it can be wrong, but people saying that it is wrong just because it doesn't follow their world view his naivety at hiis worst.

Relativity works until it reaches the area where quantum theory kicks in

Well, you can and should say the same about Quantum Mechanics: It works well untill Relativity kicks in. Then all sort of funny things happen: Particle numbers isn't conserved, vaccum isn't exactly vaccum and spin which was introduced just to suit some experiments follows naturally from Dirac's equation.

One thing that you should have in mind is that all physicall theories diserving of that name have a range were they are valid. And that range can be spacial, energetic time or whatever. For instance if you're delaing with energie scales of MeV order while studying nucleon reactions you can throw away quarck theory. That is because at that energy scale you won't get much different results and the calculus would be much harder. So when people are singing their praises to QM on their pop science books you should take it with a lot of caution. Don't get me wrong cause I think that QM, either relativistic or not, is the most beautifull theory that we have for the time being but we should never forget that it is only for the time being.

One of this days I might start a thread on the word intuition and on their multiple meanings on physics and math-physics. I think it can be a very fruitful discussion.