Light speed and relativity question

[Darnok]

Explain why these "fundamentally wrong equations" work perfectly then.

Really? So there is single consistent theory about movement of particles, planets, stars and galaxies?

[ZetaX]

Really? So there is single consistent theory about movement of particles, planets, stars and galaxies?

Yes. It is called the theory of relativity.

[SargeRho]

Quantum Mechanics explains particles, Relativity everything else. As far as I know, the two aren't compatible as of yet. K^2 can probably answer that better than I can.

[KSK]

Quantum mechanics can be made consistent with Special Relativity but not (yet) General Relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_mechanics

[LN400]

*snip*

I know, but first I need to imagine the right way?

No.

You start with an observation.

You come up with a hypothesis that tries to explain the observation. There are rules to how the hypothesis can not have inconsistencies or contradictions and so on.

You device experiments to test the hypothesis.

IF the results from the experiments support the hypothesis, you can go on. If not, then you need to either modify the hypothesis or discard it.

Now the tricky bit: Others reading your paper will do the same experiments, or device new experiments. These peers will scrutinize your findings and if only one proof is found against the hypothesis then back to the previous point.

IF the hypothesis survives the scrutiny and more experiments, IF the hypothesis is not contradicted by observations, IF it survives, it is accepted as a theory.

It follows that you can never, not even theoretically, prove any theory to be absolutely true, that it explains nature exactly as it is. You can always disprove a theory by finding a single counter example that the theory is false. Any evidence for is an indication the theory might be true and you can add up the evidence to strenghten a theory. Any evidence against is the one nail in the coffin you need to know the theory is either wrong or flawed.

[Unheld]

I'm just going to leave this here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

That is a BURN if I ever saw one, although absolutely appropiate.

Kryten, you are my hero for this month (and it has only just begun )

@Darnok:

Just out of curiosity; please; others asked the same thing:

How old are you? And what is your level of experience in the natural sciences (i.e. your educational backround)?

[AcidSludge]

Sometimes I imagine Physics as a religious cult and Einstein as a holy cow. Then it's even funnier to think about all of this stuff.

[LN400]

Sometimes I imagine Physics as a religious cult and Einstein as a holy cow. Then it's even funnier to think about all of this stuff.

Unfortunately, the way science is taught in schools, that's a pretty accurate picture of how it's presented. At least on lower levels.

God/Newton

The Pope/Einstein

The Cardinals/The Science All Stars Team

The Bishops/The uni professors

The priests/The teachers

The Congregation/The students

There is a difference though. The scientific method.

[Hcube]

Wow, the science labs are on fire tonight ! aliens, orion/dragon, special relativity !

Haven't read all 6 pages (only 2) so this may be already said or besides of the point by now, but i wanted to say this :

EDIT : Read through all 6 pages. Darnok is going places, for real. So you mentally refute almost every proven law of physics starting from scratch ? Interesting...

I'm starting to think that he is a troll...

I read your posts, Darnok, where you refute the veracity of the restricted theory of relativity.

you say that effects such as time dilatation are not possible and that there is no speed limit, right?

SargeRho gave you an example of relativity (atomic clocks in satellites) but that was a bit off-subject since it applies to general relativity.

So here's the proof that convinced others than you and will probably convince you :

There are muons that form in the upper atmosphere and that move at speeds very close to c. The "lifetime" of these muons is very short. When you use classical mechanics (Newton's laws) and basically v=d/t to predict their course, you clearly see that given the distance they have to travel (from upper atmo to ground level) and their speed, they decay WAY before they reach the ground.

(if you want the exact values ask me or look this up on the web it's easy)

BUT when you take a detector at sea level, you see muons ! How's that possible huh ?

Time is not passing at the same pace for them and for us.

Also, i wonder where you learnt all that "units are wrong/off because they are artificials" ... okay, a meter is not natural, but length is still a thing. A kg is an arbitrary unit but objects do have masses. A second is a man concept, but time still flows...

Also how could "some matter have no mass" ? I'd like to know... I'm not saying you're wrong here, just wondering about that. EDIT :(err, thinking about it, your previous theories and explanations kinda sucked... if indeed matter can be massless can someone else that knows what he is talking about explain me please ?)

I also feel a bit trolled, maybe your reflection is too philosophical and not enough scientifical

Edited June 3, 2015 by Hcube
its late and i type words twice -_-

[BlueCosmology]

I know, I do understand them (not all, but most of them)... but if I want to simplify few things I have to start from scratch,

You clearly don't, you've shown very clearly you do not understand them.

Here's a question for you to ask yourself, do you know how to derive the Schwarzschild metric or derive the wavefunction of an electron in hydrogen? The answer is clearly, you don't. These are the absolute simplest parts of general relativity and quantum mechanics. If you do not know how to do this you most certainly do not understand them. Why do you think that you do?

[PakledHostage]

[to Darnok] Why do you think that you do?

I think Kryten already answered that.

[AcidSludge]

Unfortunately, the way science is taught in schools, that's a pretty accurate picture of how it's presented. At least on lower levels.

God/Newton

The Pope/Einstein

The Cardinals/The Science All Stars Team

The Bishops/The uni professors

The priests/The teachers

The Congregation/The students

There is a difference though. The scientific method.

You forgot the altar servers. They are important!

In totally unrelated news - when I was in school, Pluto was a planet, and in the Soviet Union no one had a refrigerator, but three tractors. Science marches on. And it *may* be possible that tomorrow someone somewhere shouts "I can explain it better, and I have proof!". And then he or she proves it.

The state of physicism right now, today, works for me. Quite well, I must admit. But I'm not a physicist, I studied nursery theory (yes, that's a thing), and my nemesis is the Alzheimer Disease, not gravity, so I leave the dark matter to whoever it concerns and take care of the gray matter. Uh, that pun.

"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly yada yada yada, you all know that quote". There's plenty of room out there, mostly reserved for surprises. Same for our brains, metaphorically speaking. So keep the *healthy* debates going, ladies and gentlemen, and allow yourself a sneak peek "über den Tellerrand" - that's what the DKE-paper is all about, by the way

[Aanker]

My opening question has been adequately answered, and this thread has been hijacked by someone with an unrelated agenda, so moderators may feel free to close it.

[K^2]

Quantum Mechanics explains particles, Relativity everything else. As far as I know, the two aren't compatible as of yet. K^2 can probably answer that better than I can.

I can, indeed.

Actually, General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory are rooted in the same principles, despite independent discovery. When you get right down to it, they are the same theory. The difference is in which gauge groups are used and whether quantization is athing. The barebones QCD, for example, has the U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) gauge symmetries, while General Relativity arises from considering all possible translations and boosts/rotations in space-time as a symmetry. This is the Poincare Group.

Quantization is where things get complicated. It's what makes Quantum Mechanics quantum, so it's a rather important feature. But trying to quantize a theory that includes gravity leads to all sorts of problems. While no fully generalized Quantum Gravity theory exists, there are a number of very good approximations. Mean Field Theory approach, for example, produces a theory that covers everything from particle physics to neutron stars. Unfortunately, it breaks down near Plank Scale, as does just about every theory we have, and so it does not work near event horizons of black holes. But that's basically the only thing we still cannot properly describe. Quantum Vacuum at the event horizon. In everything else, our limitations are purely computational. Modern theoretical astrophysics has a branch that's basically particle physics of neutron stars, and that simply wouldn't work if gravity and quantum physics were completely incompatible. The math just gets all sorts of hairy.

[Vanamonde]

Closed by OP's request.