Louis Essen discusses Einstein's theories.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Scaramouche, Jan 4, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Scaramouche Registered Member

    Messages:
    432
    For those who don't know, Louis Essen was the man who defined the speed of light, invented atomic clocks, and also gave us our measurement of time (ie. the second). In other words, he knew a thing or two about time and the propagation of waves. Here's what he had to say about Einstein's work:
    Well, I can say from experience that he's not wrong regarding the beliefs of the common physicist: most I have known simply accept what they're been told regarding relativity because it's in all the books. That weight of perceived authority is enough to convince most that it must be true. Even those who freely admit they don't really understand the theory they accept and support.

    I'm not saying it's right or wrong, merely presenting Essen's opinion.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Hmm. What, exactly, are ``your experiences''?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    2,257
    Max Planck said
    Essen is just another one of those old opponents who eventually died.

    The two axioms that form the foundation of special relativity are pretty much accepted by all physicists. That the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames is an easily accepted axiom. This is true even in Newtonian mechanics. That the speed of light is the same to all observers is rather counterintuitive, but this axiom has been tested, retested, and re-retested (many times over). Physicists have long learned not to argue with experimentally verified results, even if they are highly counterintuitive. The math that underlies special relativity is particularly easy, so easy that special relativity is now taught in some high school AP physics classes.

    General relativity is a horse of a different color. That math is quite difficult. It is rather clear from the cited article that Essen did not know the distinction between special and general relativity. However, Essen is criticizing special relativity here, not GR.

    What happened is that Essen joined the rank of crackpots. Just because one has a PhD does not make one immune to the allures of psychoceramics.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    It's also clear that he didn't understand frames of references when he made his statements of it being impossible to tell tell if it was clock A or B that was in motion. And without that simple, basic understanding, it's pretty easy to see why he didn't understand SR. And it's worth noting that is the same pitfall that befuddles many today.
     
  8. Scaramouche Registered Member

    Messages:
    432
    1. Saying Essen was a crackpot so as to make it easier to dismiss him is a fallacy, is wrong, and ignores the fact that he is the person who gave us our measure of time, the speed of light, and atomic clocks.

    2. Saying "The two axioms that form the foundation of special relativity are pretty much accepted by all physicists." as an argument against what Essen said is also a fallacy (common belief), and is one of the things he pointed out as a huge problem with modern theoretical physicists.

    3. He's actually correct that if you have two moving clocks and motion is relative, either can be regarded as the one in motion. There is no universal stationary point which allows you to state that one of them is stationary.
     
  9. Scaramouche Registered Member

    Messages:
    432
    That the majority (not even just a few, but the majority) of physicists I have met have relied upon the fact that "Everyone says blah blah blah" or "It's in all the books" as the basis of their beliefs. Not "I have examined all the relevant data and come to the conclusion that..." They rely on popular opinion. I have actually heard university lecturers state those two reasons for why Relativity is correct.

    It's a major problem with science these days. A great many physicists aren't actually physicists; rather, they're mathematicians who are delving into the arena of physics. There are so many today who put together whacky-arse ideas on blackboards and declare "OMFG! I proved black holes are unicorns! And since it doesn't contradict anything people accept as fact, and my numbers all fit, it's true!" Without a shred of evidence.
     
  10. Scaramouche Registered Member

    Messages:
    432
    BTW, I think you entirely missed what he was saying about C being a constant.
     
  11. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    I find it hard to believe that you've interacted with many physicists, and still have this opinion.

    Either way, I don't think this thread will last long in this forum if you pursue this tack. You should explain what Essen is talking about and why GR is incorrect. Anything else is really sociology, and not science; discussions of such are really outside the scope of this forum.
     
  12. Scaramouche Registered Member

    Messages:
    432
    We've seen an example of it in this very discussion, after only a few posts. People using the common belief fallacy as an argument. Not that difficult to believe.
     
  13. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    I guess you mean DH's response, which I've parsed:

    The key is the last bit, which I quote again for dramatic effect:

    The implication is that physicists believe GR because they can verify it by preforming experiments.

    Are you advocating some other approach to science?
     
  14. Scaramouche Registered Member

    Messages:
    432
    The problem is that you're saying that as though they've all made those experiments. They haven't. What I am objective to is the use of a logical fallacy ("The two axioms that form the foundation of special relativity are pretty much accepted by all physicists.") as an argument.

    It is disingenuous and heading into fallacy territory to try to turn that into an attempt to show that the person who pointed out a logical weakness is in some manner a crackpot for suggesting the scientific method is somehow wrong. Maybe you should steer away from that course (the fallacy course) and stick to something more rational, like looking at Essen's ideas and thinking about them.
     
  15. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    So you want every scientist to preform every experiment?
     
  16. Scaramouche Registered Member

    Messages:
    432
    Not at all. Just steer clear of the logical fallacies as you evaluate Essen's words.
     
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    So the fact he was right once means he's always right?

    Einstein gave use the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion and Bose-Einstein statistics so by your logic you can't dismiss him!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It's not unknown for even Nobel Prize winners to go a little off the rails, look at Josephson.
     
  18. Scaramouche Registered Member

    Messages:
    432
    Good fucking grief. Please quote me saying that. Otherwise STFU and try discussing the topic.

    You'd be a moron to dismiss him.

    Many smart people have gone off the rails. Not that it has any bearing whatsoever on this thread. Yay for staying on topic.
     
  19. Guest254 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,056
  20. temur man of no words Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,330
    Can you please explain what Essen's refutals are. Did you read Essen's book? I cannot get anything from the quoted text, apart from the story.
     
  21. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    The section in red is wrong, because of the section in blue, and illustrates Essen's misunderstanding of the relativity principle (which in SR applies to uniform motion). Essen's misunderstanding is perhaps understandable because of this:
    "Einstein’s theory of relativity was dealt with very briefly in my university course but we were told that we must not expect to understand it. I accepted this situation..."

    Poor teaching is unfortunately not uncommon in undergraduate courses, and undergraduates are permitted and expected to accept many things on faith, and simply regurgitate what the textbook says. It's not ideal, but it is efficient in that it produces effective workers.
    But! Post-grad students should not be expected (and generally are not) to get away with that. Physicists who engage in post grad research are certainly not expected to simply follow majority belief, but to verify the theory themselves through rigorous mathematical construction and verification by experiment in their specific field.

    So, although 'most physicists' (meaning anyone with a degree in physics) might indeed accept relativity on faith (more research is needed ;-) ), 'most physicists with post grad qualifications in relativity' actually know how it works from the ground up.

    Note that I'm extrapolating my tertiary experiences here a bit beyond my domain of early undergrad science and engineering and post-grad business, but I suspect it's very close to the truth.
     
  22. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Thanks, Pete.
     
  23. SirJames Registered Member

    Messages:
    12

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Feynman touches on this misconception in his lectures. It seems rather obvious that if one were to actually carry out an experiment, with the intent to demonstrate time dilation, the clocks to be compared need to be together at the beginning and end of the experiment.

    That said, if they start out together it is easy to know which clock is moving and which is stationary because one clock would feel the force causing it to accelerate (from rest) and the other would not because it is stationary (relatively speaking of course).

    I hope I got that right.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page