Article View: sci.physics.relativity
Article #6553Re: PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE DEAD?
From: Pentcho Valev
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 06:23
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 06:23
118 lines
8767 bytes
8767 bytes
Pentcho Valev wrote: > http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen > George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two > contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both > of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories > must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with > reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself > that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it > would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to > be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and > hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since > the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while > retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To > tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any > fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary > again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, > to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take > account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably > necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to > exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is > tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this > knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead > of the truth." Doublethink at the Perimeter Institute. "The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered": http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now- legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT." Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIERE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 298-299: "La racine du mal etait clairement la relativite restreinte. Tous ces paradoxes resultaient d'effets bien connus comme la contraction des longueurs, la dilatation du temps, ou E=mc^2, tous des predictions directes de la relativite restreinte. (...) La consequence en etait inevitable: pour edifier une theorie coherente de la gravite quantique, quelle qu'elle soit, nous [Joao Magueijo et Lee Smolin] devions commencer par abandonner la relativite restreinte. (...) Mais, comme nous l'avons vu, celle-ci repose sur deux principes independants. Le premier est la relativite du mouvement, le second la constance de la vitesse de la lumiere. Une des solutions possibles a notre probleme pouvait etre d'abandonner la relativite du mouvement. (...) C'est une possibilite bien sur, mais nous avons choisi l'alternative evidente: preserver la relativite du mouvement, mais admettre qu'a de tres hautes energies, la vitesse de la lumiere ne soit plus constante." http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Searching_for_the_Golden_Spike.pdf "Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at a constant speed for all observers..." http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_print.html Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E7D8143FF932A05751C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all "As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes using the word ''relative.''......''Perhaps relativity is too restrictive for what we need in quantum gravity,'' Dr. Magueijo said. ''We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light.'' "....one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth": http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Outreach/Students/Modern_Physics_-_Special_Relativity/ Perimeter Institute: "Modern Physics - Special Relativity. Fast is different. You might have heard that "a moving clock runs slowly" and "a moving object occupies less space." What, exactly, does this mean, and how did Einstein discover these amazing properties of space and time? Join us on an adventure into Einstein's universe and find out why these strange-sounding properties are actually perfectly natural and easy to understand." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<b085111c-3c0d-42a1-bc35-4ad8e48e893e@o18g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!o18g2000yqi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mailReferences:
<3f757c84-5eb4-45a6-82d5-fe751ed612fb@q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> <04cf96a1-5a3e-4f51-9ac7-b5b6662ac333@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> <c4ee3b1d-7e9e-4107-8131-4c3d75d51893@b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <e3f30869-6371-4788-b7f5-d7f660556953@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <f28fd36e-bfbe-47f6-a256-b821038e1867@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Thread: 2479375fed,cb3cb20c3f37e1f4 X-Google-Attributes: gid2479375fed,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!o18g2000yqi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique Subject: Re: PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE DEAD? Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 23:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 118 Message-ID: <b085111c-3c0d-42a1-bc35-4ad8e48e893e@o18g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> References: <3f757c84-5eb4-45a6-82d5-fe751ed612fb@q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> <04cf96a1-5a3e-4f51-9ac7-b5b6662ac333@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> <c4ee3b1d-7e9e-4107-8131-4c3d75d51893@b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <e3f30869-6371-4788-b7f5-d7f660556953@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <f28fd36e-bfbe-47f6-a256-b821038e1867@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.215.207.46 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1243837381 22174 127.0.0.1 (1 Jun 2009 06:23:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 06:23:01 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o18g2000yqi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.215.207.46; posting-account=Lz-LbgoAAABPDavKeW-eYeobwLHD_cvQ User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)