Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal
From: vonroach (hadrainc_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 10/29/04
- Next message: vonroach: "Re: Roger Penrose Nonlocality of Gravity Energy & Other Matters"
- Previous message: T.T.: "Re: OT: Historical Amnesia"
- In reply to: Tom Roberts: "Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:46:52 GMT
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:52:41 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com>
wrote:
>vonroach wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:28:07 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com>
>> wrote:
>>>So the "loss" here is in people's conceptual models of the world, not
>>>anything related to Nature.
>>
>> All the contacts we have with `nature' are conceptual models. They are
>> regularly proven wrong and exchanged for new `conceptual models'.
>
>Well, OK. There are nuanced differences in what we each meant by
>"conceptual model". No matter. All that has happened is that one
>conceptual model (Newtonian mechanics) that contains global conservation
>laws has been replaced by GR, which contains only local conservation
>laws. But these local laws are indistinguishable from the old global
>laws for all cases they have been examined, AFAIK, except for the binary
>pulsar data. That data agrees with GR, not NM (Hulse and Taylor received
>a Nobel Prize for that work).
>
> [Yes, I'm oversimplifying. But I'm not omitting anything
> essential to _this_ discussion.]
>
>
>What I was trying to say is that the global conservation laws have an
>intellectual appeal to humans, but such an appeal is irrelevant in
>formulating models of Nature.
>
>
>Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
So we formulate our `conceptual models' with the naive assumptions
that the underlying basis for our `model' has existed since time = 0
until the present and into the eternity of the future. Only the brave
speculate about 0 - 10^ -43 sec. Do you have a conceptual model for
that period of time? Always conserved (as far as known) : momentum and
energy, angular momentum, electric charge/color/weak isospin, baryon
number, lepton number, and a few other quantum statistics. And we
confidently award a prize for the negative vacuum energy that we know
little about, other than it is allegedly accelerating our slow (in our
frame of reference) fade to black. We even conceptualize chaos as
orderly disorder. A wrinkled space and accordion unidirectional time
cones, confident that the speed of electromagnetic radiations is a
constant limit. Sounds closer to hubris than intellectual appeal. I
tend to be a bit cynical.
IMHO, even our invented language of mathematics has more `intellectual
appeal' than the above melange of assumptions that appear to have
worked for the anecdotal period of a few hundred years in vicinity of
a small star.
But carry on, it gives you something to do while DNA plays out its
game.
- Next message: vonroach: "Re: Roger Penrose Nonlocality of Gravity Energy & Other Matters"
- Previous message: T.T.: "Re: OT: Historical Amnesia"
- In reply to: Tom Roberts: "Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
