E not equal to mc squared a possibility PART 2

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Lilalena, Oct 19, 2010.

  1. Lilalena Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    266
    I don't know why my original thread was locked, but I hope to be able to continue the discussion here.

    przyk said:
    EXACTLY.
    Don't you think that these days it's easy to consider the NEW and REVOLUTIONARY fashionable because:

    1) they are not actually any of these things. They are relatively familiar and therefore not too difficult to digest.
    2) they are too esoteric to analyze and therefore accepted without question by certain types of people


    I'm looking for a new idea that could bring about the effect that only a truly revolutionary idea can: sick to the stomach, confused, feeling cheated, a little scared?

    Can you think of any new ideas that have achieved this, in this decade?

    I thought E not equal to mc2 could bring about this effect because :
    1) I'm quite attached to the idea (though I only understand it superficially)
    2) I picture Einstein as a nice, affable, kindly old man
    3) it's inconceivable that the equation can be wrong.


    To the person who asked what is my purpose for starting the thread:
    1) I want to write a small sketch (a comic book) around the idea. (If i do, it will be of course pending the permission of everyone who participated in the thread)
    2) I also wanted it for an intellectual exercise : to be shocked, to feel ill, ignorant, and even scandalized.

    We assume that we are so much more open minded now, and can take any new idea in stride - and regard people who were first scandalized by (for instance) Impressionism as narrow-minded. Actually we are just probably not faced with as many new and revolutionary ideas as people were in that part of the century - or the new discoveries we get today -- are too esoteric to feel too personal about...


    (The above seems very OT but I plan to make a reply in regard to Kuhn in subsequent posts.)
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,203
    No, I meant what I said.

    In science it's important for an idea to be correct. Its novelty should really be irrelevant.

    Wouldn't it be simpler to pay for a ride on a roller coaster?

    Nobody owns E = mc[sup]2[/sup]. If you're writing fiction, you can do anything you want with it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Lilalena Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    266
    "In science it's important for an idea to be correct. Its novelty should really be irrelevant."

    - Sorry, I was digressing, thinking of contemporary art examples (my area so i tend to veer that way, sorry)

    "Nobody owns E = mc2. "

    - I meant in case the discussion led to an interesting angle or if someone came up with one. Actually the original thread has brought a lot of perspective to my question and I'm still going through some of the material you suggested. Will post again soon
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    Given that, some background on the difference between disproving something and falsifying it.

    You cannot disprove \(E^2=(mc^2)^2 + p^2c^2\). It is a mathematical theorem that follows directly from the axioms of special relativity. Once a mathematical theorem is proven true it remains mathematically true for all time. Period.

    You can however falsify it, which means showing that it does not apply universally in our universe. It might be a neat mathematical result, but so what? There are plenty of neat mathematical results that have been thrown out scientifically because they do not match our universe. You can falsify Einstein's equation in a number of ways. You could perform some experiment that demonstrably shows circumstances in which energy does not obey Einstein's equation. Or you could perform some experiment that falsifies the assumptions (axioms) from which the equation was derived. Or you could perform some experiment that falsifies some other result that derives exclusively from those axioms.

    Note the common theme here: You have to conduct an experiment. Physicists are the ultimate Missourans ("show me"). They do not take some neat mathematical result such as Einstein's equation as a given. They test it, test the underlying axioms, test other predictions that arise from those axioms, over and over and over again. Relativity has been very well tested.

    That said, physicists know (or think they know) that relativity is false, somewhere. Heck, we know (or think we know) that all scientific theories are false in some way. They are but approximations of reality. The might be very good approximations, but they are only approximations. They are models, not reality.

    The problem is that physicists do not yet know where that somewhere is where general relativity does not agree with reality. Special and general relativity are theories of classical physics. While special relativity has been melded with quantum mechanics, general relativity has not. When that happens some aspects of general relativity and quantum mechanics will almost surely be shown to be false in some domain.

    Suppose some future Einstein knockoff does just that: melds general relativity with quantum mechanics. This would not mean that all prior results are suspect. It would just mean that those prior theories have limited rather than universal applicability. Those prior theories will remain very good approximations of those domains in which they have already been tested over and over and over again.
     
  8. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2010
  9. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,222
    DH, sometimes I read a post (like yours above) that says nothing I didn't know prior to reading it, nevertheless something "clicks" when I read the words of the author...anyway good post!
     
  10. Lilalena Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    266
    CptBork that's really funny...and a bit worrying.

    DH, I really appreciate your post. You touched on some things I have questions about but am still looking for my notes.


    Could you refer me to some theories that have come very close to achieving this? I'm sure I won't understand them but I have given myself a year of self-study to get as far as possible on these questions.

    Cheers!
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2010
  11. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    String theory (and its offshoots) and loop quantum gravity are the two leading contenders.

    Here is a list of relevant keywords / key phrases and a very brief description of each, if you want to read more, google is your friend (you now have the key words):
    • "Standard model of physics": 1960s-era model (plus later refinements) that explains atomic and subatomic particles. It does not explain gravity at all. Geometry plays a significant role in the standard model of physics.

    • "Lambda-cold dark matter model" (ΛCDM): The standard model of cosmology that explains the universe as a place, possibly infinite, that started with the big bang and contains dark energy, dark matter, and a smattering of ordinary matter.

    • "Beyond the standard model": Anything hypothesis that seeks to extend our understanding beyond that of the standard model of physics or ΛCDM.

    • "Grand unification theory" (GUT): The standard model of physics unifies electromagnetism and the weak force in the electroweak interaction (1979 Nobel prize). The standard model also describes the strong interaction. The model leaves the problem of unifying electroweak interaction and the strong interaction as an exercise for some future Nobel laureate.

    • Theory of everything (TOE): A theory that unifies all four known interactions: electromagnetism, the weak interaction, the strong interaction, and gravitation. Possibly jumping the gun, some researchers are attempting to build a theory of everything before building a grand unification theory.

    • "String theory": Various theories that attempt to describe particles in terms of "strings", thingies that live in a higher dimensional space than our four dimensional universe (three spatial dimensions + time). Geometry plays an even bigger role in string theory than it does in the standard model.

    • "Loop quantum gravity": A contender with string theory that says that even space is quantized.

    • "The Elegant Universe": A 1999 book by Brian Greene, aimed at the lay audience, that explains string theory as it stood at the end of the 20th century. A lot of work has been done since this book was published.

    • "The Trouble with Physics" and "Not Even Wrong": A pair of books targeted at the lay audience (with barbs targeted at some physicists) published in 2006 by Lee Smolin and Peter Woit that claim that string theory is not a case of jumping the gun: It is a case of jumping the shark.
     
  12. Lilalena Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    266
    I'm trying to write a summary of the discussion so far and my understanding of what has been said (so you can correct them)

    so it would take a few days for my next reply but in the meantime, thank you everyone. This has been very eye-opening!
     

Share This Page