Posted on 06/28/2015 3:47:07 AM PDT by lbryce
When Henri met Albert the stars didn’t quite align; nor did their clocks. Jimena Canales, historian of science, tells Joe Gelonesi about her discovery of an explosive 20th century debate that changed our view of time and destroyed a reputation.
Physicists and philosophers have a curious relationship. They both need each other for the cosmic dance, but one partner sometimes refuses to join in. Star physicist Stephen Hawking even declared the end of philosophy in 2011.
In some ways the pronouncement was to be expected; physics triumphalism dictates that at some point philosophy will exhaust itself and be unable to solve the mysteries that science seems to conquer in leaps. It’s been coming for a while; at least since the word science replaced natural philosophy a few centuries ago.
Along this narrative are high points of confrontation, played out by grand actors on the intellectual stage. Jimena Canales has rediscovered one such moment, which pitted a grandee of philosophy against a rising star of physics.
(Excerpt) Read more at abc.net.au ...
Too much of higher physics is a kludge based on mathematical modeling and not enough evidence backed reasoning. For almost 100 years mathematical papering-over of the holes in our limited comprehension of experimental facts has resulted in warring factions defending dogma.
Disagreement with the official tenants of a scientific religion, results in attack by a bureaucratic version of Torquemada’s Inquisitors to enforce silence. Inability to access peer review and publish contrary findings, the sabotage of funding resources, manipulation of the patent office for retraction after issue and publication, all to protect a fiefdom’s access to the trough.
Overwhelming public evidence will be necessary to overturn the official narratives, exposing “scientific consensus” as self serving. The beating heart of science has always been to “question” not to “go along to get along”.
The success of quantum mechanics in making correct predictions is 100%.
100% correct in all predicted outcomes of all experiments for over a century.
Not sure how you can have a better track record than that.
Isaiah left out a lot of the parameters characterizing the precise details of cosmological expansion. I don’t see a conflict between scripture and observations (aka, ‘science’). God is a subtle artisan, He made an intriguing world, a delightful universe, full of mysteries and wonders for us to discover.
As God has stretched out the Heavens, what is accumulating the potential energy caused in this stretching?
Wholeheartedly agree!! Worked with fisikers all my engineering career. One such knucklehead wanted the IRIG generator time to be changed to match the time on his wrist watch.
I think you mistake accounts in the popular press for the work of physicists, most of whom are too busy to explain their work to people who don’t have the patience to understand it.
You use a GPS receiver, I am sure. It’s operation depends on postulates from quantum mechanics (atomic clocks) and general relativity (time dilation). Responsible physicists are aware of the inconsistencies in modern physics, the remaining challenges, and limits of their knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Cosmology
The role of entropy in cosmology remains a controversial subject since the time of Ludwig Boltzmann. Recent work has cast some doubt on the heat death hypothesis and the applicability of any simple thermodynamic model to the universe in general. Although entropy does increase in the model of an expanding universe, the maximum possible entropy rises much more rapidly, moving the universe further from the heat death with time, not closer.[69] [70] [71] This results in an “entropy gap” pushing the system further away from the posited heat death equilibrium.[72] Other complicating factors, such as the energy density of the vacuum and macroscopic quantum effects, are difficult to reconcile with thermodynamical models, making any predictions of large-scale thermodynamics extremely difficult.[73]
Oh, great. Does that mean we have to go out and buy new rulers. Do we have to metric?
Seriously, are you familiar with the work of Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff?
No, I am not.
The possible connection between the electromagnetic zero-point field (ZPF) and the inertia reaction force was first pointed out by Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff (Phys. Rev. A, 49, 678, 1994), and then by Rueda and Haisch following a totally different and more satisfactory approach (Found. Phys., 28, 1057, 1998; Phys. Letters A, 240, 115, 1998; Annalen der Physik, 10 (5), 393, 2001). In the present paper, the approach taken by Rueda and Haisch will be followed, but the analysis will be done within a formulation that uses nonrelativistic quantum electrodynamics with the creation and annihilation operators rather than the approach of Rueda and Haisch using stochastic electrodynamics. We analyze the interaction between the zero-point field and an object under hyperbolic motion (constant proper acceleration), and find that there arises a reaction force which is proportional in magnitude, and opposite in direction, to the acceleration. This is suggestive of what we know as inertia. We also point out that the equivalence principle -- that inertial mass and gravitational mass have the same values -- follows naturally using this approach. Inertial mass and gravitational mass are not merely equal, they are the identical thing viewed from two complementary perspectives (Annalen der Physik, 14 (8), 479, 2005). In the first case an object accelerating through the electromagnetic zero-point field experiences resistance from the field. In the case of an object held fixed in a gravitational field, the electromagnetic zero-point field propagates on curved geodesics, in effect accelerating with respect to the fixed object, thereby generating weight. Hence, the equivalence principle does not need to be independently postulated. ]]http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6036
The papers written attempting to dismiss the concept are as interesting to read as the original documents and the calculations therein.
Not everyone declares fealty. Quantum theory is not the only facet of contention; but, for your amusement:
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-_IRbu1gAo
http://resonance.is/news/quantum-weirdness-replaced-by-classical-fluid-dynamics/
http://math.mit.edu/~bush/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Bush-AnnRev2015.pdf
http://math.mit.edu/~bush/?page_id=484
Heisenberg was stopped for doing 85 in a 45mph zone. The sheriff shouted “Do you know how fast you were going?” Heisenberg replied, “No, but I know where I am.”
(Fixed that . . .)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.