Gravitational waves observed for the first time, proving Albert Einstein right 100 years on.

Forums › Off topic › Gravitational waves observed for the first time, proving Albert Einstein right 100 years on.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

417 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 25

#1492659 15-Feb-2016 14:39

joker97:

And evolution.

Yes and no. Evolution is incomplete. But we have actually personally witnessed a natural selection process that lead to adaptive changes in real time. We know that things do evolve, even if the higher level genetic change is not just natural mutation, and the origin of DNA and the cell is unknown. We do have a direct data point for adaptive DNA change.

And I say string theory, but it is possible that any of those suddenly get a direct measurement, despite how unlikely that appears. There is a way string theory can be supported, and it might be possible to directly measure conciousness, or spacetime. But it doesn't appear so right now.

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1492660 15-Feb-2016 14:40

Dreal:

joker97:

And evolution.

Yes and no. Evolution is incomplete. But we have actually personally witnessed a natural selection process that lead to adaptive changes in real time. We know that things do evolve, even if the higher level genetic change is not just natural mutation, and the origin of DNA and the cell is unknown. We do have a direct data point for adaptive DNA change.

So are most of astrophysical theories incomplete. Doesn't mean they are wrong?

Dreal

417 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 25

#1492663 15-Feb-2016 14:43

So are most of astrophysical theories incomplete. Doesn't mean they are wrong?

Wrong and incomplete in terms of theory, are comparable terms. I mean, if something is incomplete, it is by definition not the final answer, even if it has mathematical usefulness. If we are binary about wrong or right, its wrong. Although accurately you'd say partially right, partially wrong.

But yeah, i'd say with most incomplete theories, one should be careful not to confuse math with model (the working of the equations in practice, with the interpretations favoured by their inventors or in popular thought).

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1492665 15-Feb-2016 14:45

Dreal:

So are most of astrophysical theories incomplete. Doesn't mean they are wrong?

Wrong and incomplete in terms of theory, are comparable terms. I mean, if something is incomplete, it is by definition not the final answer, even if it has mathematical usefulness. So yeah, i'd say with most incomplete theories, one should be careful not to confuse math with model (the working of the equations, with the interpretations favoured by their inventors or in popular thought).

I think you should tell Richard Dawkins once he's recovered, that he is wrong about evolution.

On the other hand, I have a new theory to study ... Bohm was it?

Dreal

417 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 25

#1492666 15-Feb-2016 14:49

joker97:

I think you should tell Richard Dawkins once he's recovered, that he is wrong about evolution.

Sometimes telling people not to confuse math with model is an exercise in addressing belief more than logic and reason I find. Some people get exactly what I am talking about. And those people are far more likely to be experimenters or theorists, for whom it pays to keep an open mind I find. But a large percentage of academics are sadly not about the open minded exploration of the truth, using logic as a sword - but believers who get importance from their sense of supposed knowing.

Bohm , yes. Bohm is bloody weird stuff. I can see why physicists did not accept it. But the math solution found last year, is so elegant, I doubt it's the last we'll hear of Bohm, nor hidden variable or non-local theories.

In fact in a weird way, it makes conceptual sense of things like effects at a distance, and other strangeness in quantum mechanics like the appearance and disappearance of virtual particles. Conceptually, it probably fits a lot better than many other models.

Trouble is, I am not sure non-locality, or hidden variables can be directly tested. The math certainly could be proven. And some predictions. But it would be like relativity - you'd never actually know if the higher end claims were true.

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1492667 15-Feb-2016 14:49

PS. I don't suppose, you think that Bohm, is ... right, do you??

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

Dreal

417 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 25

#1492669 15-Feb-2016 14:55

joker97:

PS. I don't suppose, you think that Bohm, is ... right, do you??

I considered it. It's intuitively a good match for quantum phenomena. And eliminating the big bang, and dark energy is so elegent (as per the new math last year).

But no, I have no idea, which model is correct in terms of QM. I suspect, none, that one might be 'more true' than the others, but still partial. Especially given the higgs mass, and the failure to intergrate relativity (although that last year equation I mentioned, does in fact use both QM and relativity, part of why its so cool).

But which theory is correct shouldn't be based on how 'cool' it is conceptually (many worlds is very cool), but rather how elegantly it explains what we see. In that regard, I do think Bohm is under rated. But as I said before, it also probably suffers from part of the theory being not directly testable, like relativity, or conciousness theories. So there may be equivilant math without those qualities that is superior as scientific theory and of course, even if it seems elegant, doesn't always mean its true. Plenty of people liked the elegance of supersymmetry, and that as formulated, was disproven. And whatever exists is always being refined. The overlap of relativity and bohms tragectories, is probably a lot more powerful, if its true, than either individual theory. Things are always moving forward.

If we run out of things to wonder about, not that this will ever happen IMO, life would be pretty boring.

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1492717 15-Feb-2016 16:17

I have looked at your "bohmnian mechanics" - a very philosophical argument on interpretation of quantum mechanics, with some experimental evidence to back. I doesn't contradict many of the theories that is proposed, just a different way of explaining them. I'm not sure how it disproves gravitational field (GR).

Space-time is an explanation of the observation that despite the apparent pulling force of gravity, things move further apart. Something is causing that. Hence instead of calling gravity a force, it gets coined gravitational field. Time is not the forth dimension, but another dimension. It is based on the observation that the more space you cover, the slower your clocks move - not sure if they have put an animal, plant etc and make them go fast to see if they age slower.

It appears that there is something pushing the bits apart. Call it dark energy, anti-gravity, quantum fluid, it's there. Of course there is no direct way of measuring that stars are how far they are from us, let alone moving apart. If so you should reject Bohmnian. And reject evolution. And reject many other things that you seem to happily accept (just my observation, apologies if I'm wrong).

TwoSeven

1712 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 304

Subscriber

#1492797 15-Feb-2016 19:37

Dreal:

joker97:

Photons has no mass. Anything with any mass is not capable of travelling at the speed of light without infinite energy applied.

Yeah I've heard people claim that photons have 'no resting mass' because they don't rest, a sort of circular almost semantic distinction that is core to the interpretation of most relativists.

As I understand things Photons have no rest mass (invariant mass). They have energy and are affected by gravity when they are moving, but when stationary the mass is 0. The formula is one of the de brogie equations wavelength = planks constant / momentum and special relativity mass = momentum / speed of light. The end result is that photons have a relativistic mass inversely proportional to their wavelength

Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
A.I. (Automation rebranded)
Gender Neutral
(a person who believes in equality and who does not believe in/use stereotypes. Examples such as gender, binary, nonbinary, male/female etc.)

...they/their/them...

Dreal

417 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 25

#1492852 15-Feb-2016 21:21

joker97:

I have looked at your "bohmnian mechanics" - a very philosophical argument on interpretation of quantum mechanics, with some experimental evidence to back. I doesn't contradict many of the theories that is proposed, just a different way of explaining them. I'm not sure how it disproves gravitational field (GR).

Space-time is an explanation of the observation that despite the apparent pulling force of gravity, things move further apart. Something is causing that. Hence instead of calling gravity a force, it gets coined gravitational field. Time is not the forth dimension, but another dimension. It is based on the observation that the more space you cover, the slower your clocks move - not sure if they have put an animal, plant etc and make them go fast to see if they age slower.

It appears that there is something pushing the bits apart. Call it dark energy, anti-gravity, quantum fluid, it's there. Of course there is no direct way of measuring that stars are how far they are from us, let alone moving apart. If so you should reject Bohmnian. And reject evolution. And reject many other things that you seem to happily accept (just my observation, apologies if I'm wrong).

There is nothing experimentally that proves or disproves bohms theories. But it is pretty wildly different. In bohms logic, there is no shrodingers cat - it's just we don't know where the particle is - and it's non-local, so can display confusing effects. I think 'fields' would be explained away in this manner, where normally they receive no explaination - even effects that travel faster than light - because in a non-local theory, thats a non-issue.

Which is why the 2015 equation rests on gravitons, despite using relativity for half of the math.

When einstein invented the concept of timespace, I am pretty sure he wasn't trying to explain inflation. But even if that is why it has become popular, it's not a nessasary concept, as you point out. Some say dark energy, some say quantum fluid.

I do reject evolution - it's partial. There's more to that story, and my ignorance does not beg me to pretend otherwise. And I do reject bohmian mechanics - it's certainly not proven. I have intuitions, but I don't pretend they are proven facts, only impulses, preferences.

I embrace a world view that is agnostic about matters that are unresolved. For such matters there is also philosophy, inductive reasoning, even transitive reasoning - but we needed run around being certain of everything just to make to ourselves feel better about the mysteries of the universe.

BTW, what I meant about time is, a lot of people, even relativists are starting to consider time as a completely different beast. Many people are leaving it out of new equations and finding the equations work better. In other words, we are moving, collectively, more towards a way of thinking that time is not a dimension of any kind. That it has no relation to dimensions. I think this notions of plonking time alongside spatial dimensions, and treating them similarly will likely be regarded soon as old fashioned, and possibly already is in many circles.

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

Dreal

417 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 25

#1492883 15-Feb-2016 21:27

TwoSeven:

As I understand things Photons have no rest mass (invariant mass). They have energy and are affected by gravity when they are moving, but when stationary the mass is 0. The formula is one of the de brogie equations wavelength = planks constant / momentum and special relativity mass = momentum / speed of light. The end result is that photons have a relativistic mass inversely proportional to their wavelength

Yes that is the prevailing belief. But it has not been proven, only assumed. All the math and all the experimental data points still work if photons have a very small resting mass. I've got a link if you are interested.

Interestingly according to math, if photons had a zero mass, then by the equations the distance of the electromagnetic field would be infinite (the other bosons follow this math too). Which is a little odd - an infinite field.

That could probably be tested too. But no one is running around disproving the zero resting mass of the photon....

why? Well because despite the notion of science being about rigirous testing, in fact often a thing called legacy bias kicks in, where so many people agree, or see things the same way, that peer review becomes more about just tearing down anything that isn't agreeing.

A good example would be health disease research for the last 50 or so years. There has been more work trying to PROVE the prevailing ideas, that DISPROVE it. Same with relativity more recently, or the standard model. But that's not really how science is supposed to work, it's supposed to rigiourously testing - and that means attempt to disprove, find holes, critique, come up with alternate theories - but scientific theory didn't really account logically for a very human tendancy - to follow.

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#1492931 16-Feb-2016 00:08

Imho rejecting the theory of evolution because it is incomplete is a bit mad. Incomplete is not the same as dead wrong and unsupported by any evidence at all.

Dreal

417 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 25

#1492945 16-Feb-2016 01:38

gzt: Imho rejecting the theory of evolution because it is incomplete is a bit mad. Incomplete is not the same as dead wrong and unsupported by any evidence at all.

Not saying that evolution doesn't happen, or the phenomena isn't real - we've seen genetic adaption occur in real time. Just saying the theory itself is incomplete, so elements like the rate of DNA change not being accounted for by natural mutation and the unresolved issue of where the heck DNA and the cell come from/form - these are up for grabs.

So the completed theory, would include selection for adaption, and sexual selection and DNA mutation, but also a bunch of other elements that might make the whole theory look quite different.

That's what I mean by reject. If you 'accept' evolution, often that means defending against competing ideas, or narrowing your viewpoint to rock vent theories, or lightning theories or similar. We still have a lot to account for.

This is half a picture. Like literally I think about half of the rate of DNA change is accounted for and none of the origin. That might even make it less than half. And there are periods of global world wide spikes in DNA change too from fossil records too where the rate of global change goes off the charts for no obvious or known cause.

So what I am rejecting is that the theory as a complete picture, not the evidence that is associated with proving some of its strongly demonstrated elements. IDK whats exactly going on, but there is a whole lot of weird and unknown in this picture.

I side with the sort of scientists that explore new ideas and test them, rather than the sort of academics who pretend we know everything already. Unfortunately the later outnumber the former, and always have and will.

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

BlinkyBill

1443 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1100
Inactive user

#1493021 16-Feb-2016 08:51

'Cow' is the singular of 'cows'. It's 'maths', not 'math'.

mclean

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 182

Subscriber

#1493118 16-Feb-2016 11:13

I'm an average bloke and I can't understand all this.

On the other hand I find Isaac Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation to be simple - if I set my mind to it I could probably figure them out from first principles and a bit of experimentation in a week or so. Newton's "genius" was relative to the average dumb bloke of his time.

When it comes to "modern" physics my conclusion is we are all pretty dumb. Trying hard, doing well, but still a long way from the real answers. Maybe in 500 years the physicists will have nutted it all out and it will become as simple, to the average bloke, as Newton's laws. And they will look back on us and know how ignorant we really were.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9