FTL travel here we come!
- Thread starter shavedape
- Start date
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
mzzz
Well Known GateFan
lol man, you obviously know nothing about quantum or mathMust you?. The methodology and mathematics are 19th century. There are too many "constants" being used in the equations and the work is firmly rooted in 19th century understandings of matter and energy. Quantum physics is still using Einsteinian math and relativity for the most part. Quantum theory is trying to get past it but stubborn prestige and entrenched beliefs prevent dissent. Look how resistant you are to new ideas here.
Jim of WVa
Well Known GateFan
You just now noticed?
You are very arrogant. You think you know so much about physics. So, tell me how you have applied what you know? Are you just good at spouting (regurgitating) what you think you know and no good at all with applying it? Are you working as a physicist anywhere? Earned a Nobel Prize or added anything to the field? Nevermind, I already know the answer.
The facts are that physics have advanced very very little since Einstein. There is no such thing as a constant. Period. So anything in physics using one is wrong, simply put.
You have a comment about this too? Perhaps you have some sort of physics accolades? Maybe you have applied what you know about physics in some capacity? Please share with us.
Physics is entering the Era of Stagnation - From the American Journal of Physics
Found this on the American Journal of Physics website (this one is for students):
http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v48/i3/p175_s2?isAuthorized=no
The document is not free, but I have it. Our illustrious physics experts here most certainly are members, no? The document costs $30, and in it are exactly the same arguments I have been making here on this thread. Entrenched, old ideas being embellished and re-interpreted, but NEVER re-written. The "good students" are measured on how well they understand the status quo, not on advancing the science of physics. In order for any advancements to be made, there has to be innovative thinking. The more advanced concepts of Quantum Theory and String Theory and such, are still rooted in Einsteinian and Newtonian physics. Nothing wrong with holding on to them for reference or historical reasons, but to shut out all other alternative paths because of fear or pride is just plain stupid.
The stupidest methods in physics to get answers (in my opinion)
Physics is stagnating. The understandings of gravity is in its infancy after 5 decades of advancements in other areas of physics. Why? Because the "constants" being used in the math do not allow for deviation.
Found this on the American Journal of Physics website (this one is for students):
http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v48/i3/p175_s2?isAuthorized=no
The document is not free, but I have it. Our illustrious physics experts here most certainly are members, no? The document costs $30, and in it are exactly the same arguments I have been making here on this thread. Entrenched, old ideas being embellished and re-interpreted, but NEVER re-written. The "good students" are measured on how well they understand the status quo, not on advancing the science of physics. In order for any advancements to be made, there has to be innovative thinking. The more advanced concepts of Quantum Theory and String Theory and such, are still rooted in Einsteinian and Newtonian physics. Nothing wrong with holding on to them for reference or historical reasons, but to shut out all other alternative paths because of fear or pride is just plain stupid.
The stupidest methods in physics to get answers (in my opinion)
- The destruction of particles to determine how it behaves when whole.
- The use of "constants" in mathematics which DO NOT EXIST in the real Universe.
- The creation of new subatomic particles to explain discrepancies in equations that do not balance.
- The rejection of new ideas from fresh minds to preserve the reputations of those who preceded them.
Physics is stagnating. The understandings of gravity is in its infancy after 5 decades of advancements in other areas of physics. Why? Because the "constants" being used in the math do not allow for deviation.
shavedape
Well Known GateFan
Fascinating line, simply fascinating. Correct me if I'm wrong but what you're saying is that within the field of physics that "thinking outside the box" is frowned upon. Of all the fields of study you'd think that this one would be the one where out of the box thinking would be encouraged.
Also, in regards to constants not existing would that be akin to Chaos theory in any way?
Exactomunto! The main reason for that is because there is a "prestige hierarchy" which has been created within physics. To discard or disprove significant aspects of Einsteinian physics would render the life work of physics figures such as Stephen Hawking baseless. It would invalidate the hundreds of "new particles" which have been created and named after their "discoverers" (inventors) over the last 50 years. It would make it very difficult to get funding to build such ridiculous contraptions such as particle accelerators, which I consider laughable because they cannot do what they are built to do, and they are MASSIVE taxpayer sinkholes. The funding is often mis-appropriated, and the results of experiments done with them are useless and do nothing to advance physics.
People who challenge the status quo are treated like I am being treated by mzzz. WHEN the old views are toppled (because of they do not reveal anything new, and are chock full of discrepancies and exceptions), it will be comparable to when the earth-centered solar system of Aristotle was toppled by the sun-centered Copernican model. Like Einsteinian physics, the discrepancies and exceptions noted by students of the Aristotlian system were explained away using methods similar to what is done when today's physics students create "new" subatomic particles to explain discrepancies in equations which do not balance. Its ridiculous.
Jim of WVa
Well Known GateFan
Physics may be stagnating, but you contribute less than nothing to the conversation.
1. Particles are destroyed in accelerators not to determine how they behave but to determine their internal structure.
2. That statement does not make a damn bit of sense.
3. The Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics has made predictions that have been confirmed by experiment.
4. What they reject are the rantings of retarded bastards.
Point by point
1. Particles are destroyed in accelerators not to determine how they behave but to determine their internal structure.
STUPID method. So, if I want to study the internal structure of say, a house or even a simple structure such as a cardboard box, I tear it to shreds?
Where has that gotten us in physics? NOWHERE. But the funding for particle accelerators is in the multi-millions a pop. Objective article: http://prospect.rsc.org/blogs/cw/2008/09/25/are-particle-accelerators-a-waste-of-money/
2. That statement does not make a damn bit of sense (referring to the statement that no constants exist)
Constants DO NOT EXIST in the real universe. Period. That this makes no sense to you is no surprise.
3. The Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics has made predictions that have been confirmed by experiment.
LOL, if the Standard Model is consistent, then why is physics trying to find new physics BEYOND that model? (and they are). The flat earth theory as well as the Aristotlean geocentric solar system was also "confirmed by experiment". It wasnt until the experiments took a fundamental turn that advances were made. The greater physics community has been and is still writing about stagnation of this field. That you think its okay is no surprise to me at all. I do not see much light coming from your direction.
4. What they reject are the rantings of retarded bastards.
Unlike you, I am not afraid to go out on a limb to seek new knowledge. You simply seek to be the very best and most obedient sheep of the flock, hoping to be the "lead" sheep. Im more interested in the shepherd.
mzzz
Well Known GateFan
You are very arrogant. You think you know so much about physics. So, tell me how you have applied what you know? Are you just good at spouting (regurgitating) what you think you know and no good at all with applying it? Are you working as a physicist anywhere? Earned a Nobel Prize or added anything to the field? Nevermind, I already know the answer.
The facts are that physics have advanced very very little since Einstein. There is no such thing as a constant. Period. So anything in physics using one is wrong, simply put.
Not arrogance, you don't know either subject to any rigorous level. Quantum uses constants all over the place if you've ever truly examined the subject, and we've had this convo before, you have no argument for your claim.
And you do not have one for yours. No amount of reading the same old shit is going to make a bit of difference. Without change and advancement, physics will continue to stagnate and the secrets of gravity will remain forever obscured. If constants are being used in mathematics to describe the real universe, the results will be forever flawed. One can read a book of alchemy or get a Masters in phrenology and they will have wasted their time.
mzzz
Well Known GateFan
lol, change for the sake of change? Again, the burden of proof is on you since you are the one trying to advocate against an established system. And if you agree with something along the lines of the universe displays order, then you have to accept constants. If you ever studies real math and physics, you'd know you need to establish base fundamentals and base relations which give rise to constants within those frameworks.
Jim of WVa
Well Known GateFan
Yes. Even in a classical problem like water in a jug, the material properties of the jug, air, and water are all constants.
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
They're constant so long as the environment doesn't change. Turn the temperature up or down and their properties can change. Add sufficient gravity and elements can fuse. Constants, in your water-in-a-jug case, depend on maintaining the current state.
shavedape
Well Known GateFan
So you're stating that conjecture is constrained within this established base of fundamentals therefore there's no need to study physics further as the rules are set in concrete and theoretical outcomes using these rules are finite and limited. You're actually stating that one is wrong to think outside the box. M'kay, good luck with that bro.
So you're stating that conjecture is constrained within this established base of fundamentals therefore there's no need to study physics further as the rules are set in concrete and theoretical outcomes using these rules are finite and limited. You're actually stating that one is wrong to think outside the box. M'kay, good luck with that bro.
Green! The tenets of "modern physics" do not even follow the original tenets from the physicists like Newton and Einstein who created them. Newton was chillin out under a tree, Einstein was a marginal student who worked in the patent office. Today, you have wannabes who are merely teaching people to CONFORM to the established dogma, and like you said, any deviation from that dogma is discouraged. That is why physics is stagnating and why students and graduates of physics rarely introduce anything new to the field except perhaps yet ANOTHER obscure subatomic particle they have named after themselves. Its sad.
Physics is for everyone. Every good billiards player uses a form of it to make their shots, but stuck up physics students would deny that, because they would hold that the billiards player "knows nothing". Physics is one of the few sciences which has stagnated to this degree. It is also the only science which has such a huge number of people's names placed on processes and objects (ie Hawking Radiation). When pressed, they cannot prove that an equation taking up an entire wall is superior to a billiard player eyeballing his 8-ball shot in the corner pocket.
Even then they are not constant, because the environment ALWAYS changes. Constants are not an empirical reality in this universe, and that is what I mean when I say that mathematical equations which use them are inherently flawed.
LOL, NONE of those things are constant. The material properties of the jug are changed by heat or cold. Even different areas of the jug have different properties. The air is affected by heat and cold as well as gravity, and the water would be GONE after a year in that jug, due to evaporation or by seeping through the porous jug. There are NO constants in the real universe. NONE.