Jump to content
Science Forums

AnssiH

Members
  • Content Count

    838
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Everything posted by AnssiH

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Yeah I would pretty much agree with that. It's a bit unfortunate that it's so popular to see these concepts as something much more than very handy mental ideas.
  15. Yeah I would consider that one of the better representations of the issue, because it draws out the fact that the whole thing arises from the notion of dynamic simultaneity. And note how he represents objects as a set of spatial/temporal events to make the actual logical mechanism clear - exactly what I'm talking about in my previous long post. Another thing that his apparatus also makes very clear is that the frame transformation really does just scale events around - there is no way to end up into a self-contradiction even if you are transforming events that represent a spinning disk. Thos
  16. Yes but by "paradox" we mean an apparent inconsistency within the framework of a theory. It has got nothing to do with observations. And if the theory is actually self-consistent, the solution is also purely logical work. It's just about identifying the error in the assumptions leading to paradox, and how the situation actually must be represented in the framework of that theory. Generally paradoxes are cases of applying the rules of a theory in inconsistent manner. That is exactly what has happened with Ehrenfest Paradox. That is why I'm so surprised that the actual correct, purely logical
  17. Hey Laurie, I remember you from this forum back in the day. I can hardly believe it's been over 10 years... :I Thanks, that was an interesting read. It reinforces my views on the reasons why people tend to get this so wrong. Everyone make a wrong assumption about infinitesimal Lorentz contraction right at the get-go without thinking about it critically. The correct solution does not seem to appear anywhere on that paper (they get the rolling disk case right though. But that's not the original paradox). Truthfully, I'm quite dumbfounded about all of this. The commonly presented solutions
  18. Yeah, I actually discussed that exact topic here http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/35098-relativity-and-simple-algebra/?view=findpost&p=385984 which you might find interesting. Anyway, yeah I would have agreed on that same junction - when Special Relativity was first introduced and it was mathematically exactly identical to Lorentz' latest theory - that redundant concepts are redundant. But then couple years later people invented a new redundant concept, the Minkowski Spacetime, which should have been recognized as equally redundant. But it made great headlines, I guess :shrug: Basical
  19. Yeah, everything's a collection of microscopic elements that can only communicate at maximum speed of C. That puts an upper bound on "rigidity". But I have no idea why you are bringing that up?
  20. The point is, they cannot possibly co-incide except by an infinitesimally small slice of the rotating rod. When you imagine the rods as fully co-inciding, you are committing exactly the logical error I try to explain - and map the situation in inconsistent manner. As I said, this error is incredibly pervasive and everyone just does it without giving it a second thought. A rod cannot be tied to the rotating wheel and and still also occupy a single inertial frame through its length. Taking this simple fact into account correctly solves the paradox entirely.
  21. I think there are quite many possibilities, especially when taking into account that the concept of intrinsic mass is so deep in our current models, it is quite likely that this would change the perspective very radically and likely imply different breakdown of "fundamental particles". In particular, I think the complexity of Standard Model is a tell-tale sign that simpler possibilities exist. But there is something very interesting going on with the Standard Model also in this regard, if we just directly apply this principle onto it (which may be invalid after rigorous analysis, but gives som
  22. I just recently stumbled upon a Quora question regarding Ehrenfest Paradox, and noticed that people were giving completely wrong answers to it. Basically the paradox is this; In terms of Special Relativity, how does spinning disk work in special relativity, if the circumference of the rotating disk undergoes length-contraction (since it's parallel to motion) while its radius does not (since it's perpendicular to motion), and this would imply that [math]\frac{circumference}{diameter} \neq \pi [/math]. I checked bunch of similar questions of the same topic, and can't find a single person g
  23. Sorry, I still don't understand how you view this... With Loedel frame you only get shared notion of time between two observers, but what about the rest of the universe? Or just add a third observer; what is the convention you'd use in that case?
  24. Well, feel free to discuss how do you view gravity, although maybe keep it short in this thread as that's another topic entirely. In the meantime, I guess to turn this question around, I'd like to hear thoughts from people about how to avoid the conclusions I make in the OP. I mean really, by what mechanism could we avoid the idea that microscopic objects get pushed into non-stable state with the objects they are bound to? It seems extremely difficult to me to come up with ideas where this would not happen... So, can it really be valid to ignore the effects of finite information speed entire
×
×
  • Create New...