Jump to content
Science Forums

AnssiH

Members
  • Content Count

    849
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

AnssiH last won the day on April 26

AnssiH had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About AnssiH

  • Rank
    Understanding
  1. Yeah indeed. Just to be accurate, what he presents is the optical appearance of a rolling wheel in kinematic case (excluding all dynamical effects), i.e. what it optically looks like when it rolls past and we are still on an embankment (flat against the ground - the distance to the top of the wheel is greater than the distance to the bottom, hence asymmetric distortion) What is very curious here is that he assumes - correctly but without explicitly saying it - that the circumference of a rotating wheel (when axle is at rest) is not impacted by length contraction. Observe; his image B is t
  2. Just one thing I've been meaning to comment here but keep forgetting. From the perspective of above thought, it's quite interesting that Fizeau experiment has been long known to indicate that the motion of transparent medium does introduce an element of drag to C. This experiment has been historically difficult to explain because people insist on a view where "matter" and "space" are two completely decoupled entities. But if you view them as coupled to the same "entity", now you have a quite intuitive expectation that the very close proximity of the "elements" that make up the water could
  3. Ah, I see. Thanks! Yeah there seems to be some interesting thoughts in there, with the caveat that you have to also ignore some quite silly assertions... I mean the very premise of this article is obviously problematic: "...the point of this study: to determine the kinematic rT that accurately describes the relativistic effects that are observed in rotating frames." Obviously there's no such thing as kinematic rT (rotational transformation) that describes observed effects, because actual observed effects are subject to also all sorts of dynamic effects. This r
  4. Yeah, since the last time we talked about this - about the expected influence of simply homogeneous universe extending beyond observational universe - I've been paying some attention to how often people make assertions that imply (tacitly or otherwise) that their model contains "nothing" outside of our observable universe, and indeed I've been seeing that passed around a bit. But did you have something in particular in mind in this context? I'm not sure am making the connection you are seeing... 🤔 -Anssi
  5. This is somewhat off-topic, but regarding the dimensionality question, it seems pretty clear to me that dimensionality is fully open parameter of our world model. To explore that thought more deeply, you might be interested of checking out the that analysis I referred to in the opening post I realize it's not read and understood in a jiffy, so to give a hand-wavy rundown of the relevant bits here; it's an analysis for general data mapping, exploring some general constraints that come out purely from self-consistency requirements of a prediction function. From that point you can get ef
  6. Yeah well, I don't really know anything about her so can't say much there, but I do share the "well trained parrot" sentiment about pretty much all Youtube physics channels I'm aware of. I mean, I don't expect pure gold from everywhere and I appreciate the difficulty of translating complex concepts into simple explanations, and maybe it's often a case of poor communication, but most of the time anything I watch makes me feel like they really have very shallow idea of what they are talking about, and probably end up spreading more misinformation than actual information. Anyway, the reason
  7. Related to the idea above, there's a nice little rundown of some of the problems of a Dark Matter hypothesis here (starting from 5:11): Think about those problems from the perspective that what we call space is just an extension of matter - basically defining the (local) propagation speed of EM radiation. The anomalies mentioned here seem to be fairly easily explainable by that idea, as the rotation of a large galaxy cluster would influence the propagation speeds of EM radiation in its vicinity (and thus how the influence of gravity itself is felt). The question is, is ther
  8. Hi Dubbelosix Hmm, I'm not quite sure why do you mention these examples... By dispersion relation are you referring to the use of Planck constant in energy <-> frequency relationship? And by "Einstein slope", do you refer to photoelectric effect? If you had something interesting in mind about these specific examples, I'm interested of hearing some elaboration. But in the meantime I'll just comment that of course Planck Constant appears in relativistic contexts often. But being able to use it in some circumstances is different from being able to use it in all circumsta
  9. Now that's a pretty epic thread 😅 And yeah, ignoring all "stuff" outside of our observation sphere seems to be indeed a good example of the same philosophical trap... -Anssi
  10. Planck constant is routinely described as "representing the smallest quantity that exists in reality", or even worse, as "the smallest quantity imaginable". Certainly it is not the smallest "imaginable" quantity. Take Planck length - 1.61622837 × 10^-35 meters. Now imagine a smaller number. There, you did it. But is it fair to think of it as "the smallest quantity that exists in reality". In physics, people often adopt a philosophy where things that cannot be measured also "do not exist". From that perspective they might say that "nothing smaller than Planck length exists" - since it
  11. Hi Ralfcis, Yeah, there's couple of details here worth considering really carefully, as John's mistake there is the same that the entire physics community has been merrily making for the past 100 years. First let me voice out a very obvious disclaimer - dropping out acceleration (/gravity) effects makes this a rather unrealistic example to discuss in terms of time dilation (because one or the other participant would always either feel acceleration, or sit deeper in a gravitational well, both of which possibly* imply time dilation), but let's anyway discuss the kinematic term of the t
  12. Hi Steven, thank you for your response. Yup. It's a critical fact here that electron behavior is indeed well described by a probabilistic wave function. That fact already implies electron can be interpreted as a pure wave phenomena as well, only getting its particle status by how it interacts with other elements (i.e. how a detection event occurs). And that fact directly leads into a paradoxical circumstance, if we insist that it exists as a particle even when nothing is there to interact with it (i.e. to "detect" it) Electron orbitals are described by a wave function wh
  13. Yeah, good point. I momentarily overcame my laziness, improved the abstract, and copied it to the OP with a short summary 😊 Thank you, I had not seen this paper before. I read it and quite agree with the sentiment. And it's also always fun to read more detailed historical accounts of the development of some physics concepts. Always serves as a nice reminder how these concepts really are sociological constructs - with different order of discoveries, the common paradigms for modeling things would look different in details that many people just assume to be "proven by a theory". For
  14. Here's a view of quantum mechanics that I've been thinking about a bit in the past. I think it's easily powerful enough to be useful for others too. And to be honest, if you start viewing things through this interpretation, it can become a "bit" frustrating to see people over-complicate QM for themselves, and make it all seem more mysterious than it needs to be. I have never heard anyone use this type of interpretation, so I presume it is somewhat novel approach - despite being so incredibly simple, and almost "too obvious to miss". And yes, I understand the gravity of the claim of solvin
  15. Hi Sluggo. Sorry it took me a while to respond - I was occupied with bunch of other things. But what's the hurry here, right? 😄 The way I would put it is, there is nothing in SR that requires a static universe. There's a lot in there that "implies" static universe (rather famously so), but is dependent on ones particular interpretation of the theory. The point that is relevant to this thread and that I would like everyone to have clear understanding of, is that if we assume that relativistic simultaneity is ontologically real, we are also assuming there is never any si
×
×
  • Create New...