Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


AnssiH last won the day on February 21

AnssiH had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About AnssiH

  • Rank
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Hi Sluggo, Now that you mention this, the original paper for SR (that I linked before) is actually quite nice in that it doesn't really suggest any particular ontology (like Minkowski spacetime), but the reader must be careful to understand it as merely drawing purely logical connections between definitions when reading it. Nowadays people read it with Minkowski's interpretation in mind and tend to take SR as literally an argument for "Minkowski spacetime", even though it doesn't mention such thing anywhere. This misconception leads exactly into my original complaint about people locki
  7. Hi Sluggo I'm afraid your post exemplifies exactly the confusions I was complaining about in my long post. Look, it's very simple to convince yourself of this matter. The mathematics of Lorentz aether theory are exactly the same as using Special Relativity, but instead of transforming from observer to observer, you'd arbitrarily choose some reference frame, and then do all of your calculations from that frame. I'm sure you can trivially accept this as mathematically valid approach. You can always go back to this simple point, if you feel any doubt. If the above wouldn't work, th
  8. Hmm yes, that could make it easier to follow... 🤔 OTOH I'm also on the fence for completely removing all the extra commentary as it's not strictly needed... but then I also feel like some readers might be stuck on one of those solutions, and unable to see its problems without pointing it out... Anyway, good feedback, I'll need to think about what to do... Thanks! -Anssi
  9. Let me say I completely share the sentiment in the OP. Especially in popularizations of science, the language used is almost always using much more certain terms than is actually warranted, and I think it is damaging to the students of science. And it is not just the language used, often the people teaching the topics are confusing apples with oranges themselves. "Scientific philosophy" (a.k.a. "science") originally arose as a response against the unwarranted air of certainty of various religious philosophies. It is, or at least should be, by its very definition, the attitude of preservin
  10. Alright,I gave this a stab. Here's what I have so far; https://www.dropbox.com/s/p4msczv4028rd8i/Kinematic Solution To The Ehrenfest Paradox.pdf?dl=0 I'm failing on the "concise" part a bit, although more than half of the length is extra discussion. I feel like this whole thing could be explained in one page, but then I look at all the silly solution suggestions out there in published papers, and my confidence to the "one-page approach" being enough vanishes... I just don't know which detail is the one everyone keep missing here when they insist on paradoxical solutions 🤷‍♂️ Anyway
  11. So, going back to the topic of the OP, it seems to me that it would make sense to publish this solution somewhere. I mean we have over a century of silly solutions, so maybe it's time... There must be people out there who'd be interested of understanding how it actually pans out under SR. I'm absolutely confident this is correct solution because it just falls out of purely SR logic without violating anything in SR. I could write a cleaned up, clearer, more concise / focused version. Maybe add a clarifying picture or two if it feels necessary. (Any feedback for anything that felt unclear in th
  12. Yeah I noticed the comments about this when reading that thread on the other forum. Seems kind of strange to assume that beyond our observational boundary nothing would influence things inside our boundary... But throughout the history of natural philosophy we have found - to the surprise of most people - that we are further and further away from the center of the universe. And step by step we have found that we are smaller than we think. Again this really says more about the human psychology than the universe... And on that token, the common Big Bang view just really does place us in a re
  13. That's quite interesting. This is a topic I'm not too familiar with so I can't say much. But I noticed people quite aggressively defending "conventional views" on that other forum. I must say that in general the whole general topic of dark matter, dark energy, big bang theory etc, is so full of shaky assumptions, crude approximations and dependencies to rather fragile aspects of our current theories, that I find little bit silly to take any of it as much more than highly hypothetical musings. I mean, it's hard to think of a more arrogant thing to say than "we know the age of the universe" or
  14. I'm not familiar with Penrose's argument on this matter, but I touched the topic of people trying to solve the paradox with additional dynamics, and why that is immediately off-topic. Of course there are no "rigid bodies" because there's no infinite information speeds holding objects together. But the point of the paradox is to question how does purely abstract geometry work in terms of relativistic transformation. A single inertial frame is expressed in euclidean coordinate system by definition, therefore a snapshot of a disk must also be expressible as euclidean no matter what inertial fra
  • Create New...