Measuring the curvature of spacetime

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Plazma Inferno!, Dec 28, 2015.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Calm down my boy, you'll have a coronary! Sheesh.
    So anyway why all the likes? Or are you again, just as another adversary of mine did, use the like button for opposite to what any normal person knows its for?
    That's a rather childish application I suggest, but I suppose just as whenever you see the need to create nonsense on a science forum, you just ain't interested in real science.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    We have at least half a dozen doing the same at this time [I'm too lazy to get an exact number]

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    brucep likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I get he's touting his own brand of nonsense but I don't get why he feels the need to dis folks like Minkowski, Witten, Thorne, and others because of his aversion to the use of geometry in theoretical models. Probably because he doesn't understand how it's used or what for.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Each weirdo to his own. :shrug:
     
  8. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,302
    I don't think paddoboy is dishonest, maybe over zealous.

    I've been a member of this forum longer than both of you, and still your post counts are higher lol
     
    danshawen likes this.
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    I'm sure he isn't dishonest, and neither am I.

    There should be a way to recognize that as a virtue (I do).

    I got tired of answering the same questions on this thread, and brucep was right. It was time to let it die.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Thank you beery:
    Perhaps my overzealousness as you note, is driven by the anti science tripe and crank nonsense we see on this forum, which afterall is first and foremost a science forum. What difference does it make I hear you ask? None as I have noted many times. The rantings and ravings of the few, are certainly confined here, and make no difference in the overall greater scheme of things.
    Still, the forum does have visitors, and when a discredited crank view is put, I believe it should be refuted.
     
  11. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,302
    I think this forum originally a science fiction forum.

    Mayne ask James R.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  12. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    It still is. Science itself became fiction with the introduction of Hilbert spaces to QM and GR.

    Before there were abacuses, math was done entirely with knots in string. Some 20th century jokers decided it was time to take physics and the mathematics associated with it back to the good old days. And so string theory and Hilbert space were invented. Every complex problem had the same solution again. It didn't matter that the solution was wrong, or that it had nothing to do with the problem or the way things actually worked. The preponderance of such work was never put to the test. Most papers on the subject don't even get read for consistency once, much less reviewed. If they did, much fewer would get published.

    It doesn't matter if you don't understand quantum spin. Just map it to a Hilbert space and you don't even need to measure how long the string is, how many revolutions it made, what the actual moment of inertia is, or anything else. Forget about the internal structure; if any; it's too complex. Think of fundamental particles as points. Never mind that over half the symmetries the math uncovers are sheer nonsense. It's a mathematical swiss army knife for people too lazy to do pioneering intellectual work like relativity by force of clear thinking, the way Einstein did. Suddenly, everyone's an Einstein, but without the work that goes into what he accomplished.

    And guess what?? They use the SAME MATH in GR. Same Hilbert spaces. Same Tensors. Same Riemann geometry. Same linear algebra. Because it doesn't really matter to them. They are too busy being geniuses with their advanced math/swiss army knife. The same tool for every problem. The same model for every scenario. Nature probably does that too, but not the way they think it does. Lazy never changes. Neither does stupid.

    Nature does the same thing to mathematicians who think about every problem in the same limited way that it does to a wounded antelope with a broken leg being chased by a young, strong, hungry cheetah. Remember when a wrong or untestable answer to a problem would only have meant the end of your career in math?

    The trouble with math done with knots in string was untangling the string after your calculations, of course. I'm sure it made for some impressive balls or more likely piles of tangled twine, but go figure.

    If space were curved, has anyone considered it might get so curved, it could tangle itself into knots? Map it all into Hilbert space and see what happens. Who cares if it has physical meaning or not.
     
  13. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    This guy is a string theorist. I have watched all of his lectures. He is also a relative.

    I don't care what he says about the curvature of spacetime or anything else. It carries no more weight than it would from any of the other lifetime physics instructors in my extended family.
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,280
    The trouble is though, that QM and GR, riddled with Hilbert Space crap though they may be, do actually seem to work. Nobody says they are the final answer. Criticism of flaws is easy. Finding a superior way of doing things is harder. Even for your brilliant relatives.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  15. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Hlbert's work in mathematics was been criticized by his mathematical peers as "shallow", as evaluated by his own standards. Much of his work (integral equations) has already been designated "only of historical interest". His initiative toward an axiom-ization of all of mathematics were rendered useless while they were in process by Gödel's incompleteness theorems. This is the 21st century. Why do we give a $#!+ about a 19th century mathematician like Hilbert, or for that matter, higher dimensions of Ancient Greek Euclidean geometry?

    Hilbert thought that physics was "too difficult to be left to physicists." My assessment of his work is the same as his colleagues.

    If someone wants to impress me that Hilbert spaces are useful for something, apply them to ordinary, everyday mathematical situations instead of something as bizarre as QM. Teach them to your students like that, before teaching any physics to go along with it. I know it can be done, but there are almost always better ways to do the same thing. Being obscure and obtuse for the sake of being obscure and obtuse is about as elegant as being a crank, and I would know all about that. I could care less whether Abelian groups have any operators that commute or not. How does that affect real life?

    Relativistic rotation is going to be strange. Deal with it directly, or go back to playing with your math. The real universe is dynamic. You can't freeze it and take a Euclidean snapshot of it in a higher dimension to work with and expect it will tell you anything about energy exchanges. No wonder particle physicists no longer believe that energy conservation is a natural law that can't be broken, even on the subatomic scale. Take away time, and guess what? It isn't. Multiplying 2.0, 3.0, or infinity times the speed of light isn't a problem to deal with in math either. That doesn't mean it corresponds to anything real.

    I married into Leonard's extended family. My brother in law still tutors physics, having taught it in high school for 36 years. I don't talk to him about physics either. I can solve any problem he can, and some he probably can't.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2016
  16. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You got your answer, though you would rather rage angrily: using Hilbert spaces works and works well.

    Of course, there are alternative mathematical formulations of quantum theory. You're just too angry to research them, because then you might not have a clear target when you express your anger.

    It would be more productive for you to deal with your anger than to spout nonsense about physics and mathematics where everyone can see you.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space#Applications

    If one wants to learn mathematics for its own sake, one is free to do so.

    I fear that, in your anger, you are demonstrating again that the attacks you hurl outward demonstrate something about yourself.
     
  17. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    A simple exercise for all the supporters of recent BH GW....

    1. Pl give calculations for measure the curvature of spacetime caused by an object of around 60 solar mass situated 1.3 bly away.

    2. Just vanish it completely (don't bother about 3 solar mass), and calculate the path difference due to this change in curvature.

    3. Consult an optics guy and ask him if we can get interference pattern due to this...
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    If you needed a brain operation, would you consult your local garbage man?
    The results are in my friend, and outstanding at that......not only confirmation of GW's but also total confirmation of BH's.
    But don't worry, I'll keep checking and watching for any changes.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page