Re: Weinberg & Thomson Aether Physics
From: Morituri-|-Max (newage_at_sendarico.net)
Date: 12/30/04
- Next message: Morituri-|-Max: "Re: Space travel with lasers"
- Previous message: Jeffrey Turner: "Re: [OT] I hate being American"
- In reply to: caltechdude: "Weinberg & Thomson Aether Physics"
- Next in thread: caltechdude: "Re: Weinberg & Thomson Aether Physics"
- Reply: caltechdude: "Re: Weinberg & Thomson Aether Physics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 20:53:31 GMT
What caltechdude said Mr. Weinberg said.
caltechdude wrote:
> Steven Weinberg who received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979
> for unifying the two fundamental forces had the following to say..
> What is unique about Thomson Aether Physics is that he has all
> the mathematics to prove his hypothesis. I'm still analyzing them
> and looking for the goof-offs that can shatter them to
> smithereens. Our school has obsession with Theory of Everything
> because it wants to earn credit for the Nobel Prizes that would
> be won. Therefore many thesis projects involve creating TOEs. I'm
> interested in Thomson stuff because if he has already nailed the
> TOE, why waste time looking for it, and for the reason it's
> difficult to change thesis subject in the middle when one knows
> Thomson already nailed it. After the article of Weinberg. I'll
> share Thomson many major points I got from another group for
> examination. The reason I can't scrutinize them fully yet is
> because I don't understand all his points and just waiting for
> others to point them out. I don't have enough bucks for his book.
> The web site version didn't have the complete mathematics and
> illustrations.
What the article ACTUALLY said is below.. I don't see the above anywhere in the
article. In fact I don't see the term "aether" anywhere in the article.. it
seems to be about... quantum physics and string theory.. not a glimmer of
anything about "aether", either a theory, soup recipe, etc.
-- -- --
*Tying together relativity and quantum physics might require 10-dimensional
"string"-or something even stranger
By STEVEN WEINBERG*
The 20th century was quite a time for physicists. By the mid-1970s we had in
hand the so-called standard model, a theory that accurately describes all the
forces and particles we observe in our laboratories and provides a basis for
understanding virtually everything else in physical science.
No, we don't actually understand everything-there are many things, from the
turbulence of ocean currents to the folding of protein molecules, that cannot be
understood without radical improvements in our methods of calculation. They will
provide plenty of interesting continued employment for theorists and
experimenters for the foreseeable future. But no new freestanding scientific
principles are needed to understand these phenomena. The standard model provides
all the fundamental principles we need.
There is one force, though, that is not covered by the standard model: the force
of gravity. Einstein's general theory of relativity gives a good account of
gravitation at ordinary distances, and if we like, we can tack it on to the
standard model. But serious mathematical inconsistencies turn up when we try to
apply it to particles separated by tiny distances-distances about 10 million
billion times smaller than those probed in the most powerful particle
accelerators.
Even apart from its problems in describing gravitation, however, the standard
model in its present form has too many arbitrary features. Its equations contain
too many constants of nature-such as the masses of the elementary particles and
the strength of the fundamental units of electric charge-that are there for no
other reason than that they seem to work. In writing these equations, physicists
simply plugged in whatever values made the predictions of the theory agree with
experimental results.
There are reasons to believe that these two problems are really the same
problem. That is, we think that when we learn how to make a mathematically
consistent theory that governs both gravitation and the forces already described
by the standard model, all those seemingly arbitrary properties will turn out to
be what they are because this is the only way that the theory can be
mathematically consistent.
One clue that this should be true is a calculation showing that although the
strengths of the various forces seem very different when measured in our
laboratories, they would all be equal if they could be measured at tiny
distances-distances close to those at which the above-mentioned inconsistencies
begin to show up.
Theorists have even identified a candidate for a consistent unified theory of
gravitation and all the other forces: superstring theory. In some versions, it
proposes that what appear to us as particles are really stringlike loops that
exist in a space-time with 10 dimensions. But we don't yet understand all the
principles of this theory, and even if we did, we would not know how to use the
theory to make predictions that we can test in the laboratory.
Such an understanding could be achieved tomorrow by some bright graduate
student, or it could just as easily take another century or so. It may be
accomplished by pure mathematical deduction from some fundamental new physical
principle that just happens to occur to someone, but it is more likely to need
the inspiration of new experimental discoveries.
We would like to be able to judge the correctness of a new fundamental theory by
making measurements of what happens at scales 10 million billion times smaller
than those probed in today's laboratories, but this may always be impossible.
With any technology we can now imagine, measurements like those would take more
than the economic resources of the whole human race.
Even without new experiments, it may be possible to judge a final theory by
whether it explains all the apparently arbitrary aspects of the standard model.
But there are explanations and explanations. We would not be satisfied with a
theory that explains the standard model in terms of something complicated and
arbitrary, in the way astronomers before Copernicus explained the motions of
planets by piling epicycles upon epicycles.
To qualify as an explanation, a fundamental theory has to be simple-not
necessarily a few short equations, but equations that are based on a simple
physical principle, in the way that the equations of general relativity are
based on the principle that gravitation is an effect of the curvature of
space-time. And the theory also has to be compelling-it has to give us the
feeling that it could scarcely be different from what it is.
When at last we have a simple, compelling, mathematically consistent theory of
gravitation and other forces that explains all the apparently arbitrary features
of the standard model, it will be a good bet that this theory really is final.
Our description of nature has become increasingly simple. More and more is being
explained by fewer and fewer fundamental principles. But simplicity can't
increase without limit. It seems likely that the next major theory that we
settle on will be so simple that no further simplification would be possible.
The discovery of a final theory is not going to help us cure cancer or
understand consciousness, however. We probably already know all the fundamental
physics we need for these tasks. The branch of science in which a final theory
is likely to have its greatest impact is cosmology. We have pretty good
confidence in the ability of the standard model to trace the present expansion
of the universe back to about a billionth of a second after its start.
But when we try to understand what happened earlier than that, we run into the
limitations of the model, especially its silence on the behavior of gravitation
at very short distances. The final theory will let us answer the deepest
questions of cosmology: Was there a beginning to the present expansion of the
universe? What determined the conditions at the beginning? And is what we call
our universe, the expanding cloud of matter and radiation extending billions of
light-years in all directions, really all there is, or is it only one part of a
much larger universe in which the expansion we see is just a local episode?
The discovery of a final theory could have a cultural influence as well, one
comparable to what was felt at the birth of modern science. It has been said
that the spread of the scientific spirit in the 17th and 18th centuries was one
of the things that stopped the burning of witches. Learning how the universe is
governed by the impersonal principles of a final theory may not end mankind's
persistent superstitions, but at least it will leave them a little less room.
Steven Weinberg is a Nobel laureate in physics at the University of Texas. His
books include Dreams of a Final Theory
*Tying together relativity and quantum physics might require 10-dimensional
"string"-or something even stranger
By STEVEN WEINBERG*
The 20th century was quite a time for physicists. By the mid-1970s we had in
hand the so-called standard model, a theory that accurately describes all the
forces and particles we observe in our laboratories and provides a basis for
understanding virtually everything else in physical science.
No, we don't actually understand everything-there are many things, from the
turbulence of ocean currents to the folding of protein molecules, that cannot be
understood without radical improvements in our methods of calculation. They will
provide plenty of interesting continued employment for theorists and
experimenters for the foreseeable future. But no new freestanding scientific
principles are needed to understand these phenomena. The standard model provides
all the fundamental principles we need.
There is one force, though, that is not covered by the standard model: the force
of gravity. Einstein's general theory of relativity gives a good account of
gravitation at ordinary distances, and if we like, we can tack it on to the
standard model. But serious mathematical inconsistencies turn up when we try to
apply it to particles separated by tiny distances-distances about 10 million
billion times smaller than those probed in the most powerful particle
accelerators.
Even apart from its problems in describing gravitation, however, the standard
model in its present form has too many arbitrary features. Its equations contain
too many constants of nature-such as the masses of the elementary particles and
the strength of the fundamental units of electric charge-that are there for no
other reason than that they seem to work. In writing these equations, physicists
simply plugged in whatever values made the predictions of the theory agree with
experimental results.
There are reasons to believe that these two problems are really the same
problem. That is, we think that when we learn how to make a mathematically
consistent theory that governs both gravitation and the forces already described
by the standard model, all those seemingly arbitrary properties will turn out to
be what they are because this is the only way that the theory can be
mathematically consistent.
One clue that this should be true is a calculation showing that although the
strengths of the various forces seem very different when measured in our
laboratories, they would all be equal if they could be measured at tiny
distances-distances close to those at which the above-mentioned inconsistencies
begin to show up.
Theorists have even identified a candidate for a consistent unified theory of
gravitation and all the other forces: superstring theory. In some versions, it
proposes that what appear to us as particles are really stringlike loops that
exist in a space-time with 10 dimensions. But we don't yet understand all the
principles of this theory, and even if we did, we would not know how to use the
theory to make predictions that we can test in the laboratory.
Such an understanding could be achieved tomorrow by some bright graduate
student, or it could just as easily take another century or so. It may be
accomplished by pure mathematical deduction from some fundamental new physical
principle that just happens to occur to someone, but it is more likely to need
the inspiration of new experimental discoveries.
We would like to be able to judge the correctness of a new fundamental theory by
making measurements of what happens at scales 10 million billion times smaller
than those probed in today's laboratories, but this may always be impossible.
With any technology we can now imagine, measurements like those would take more
than the economic resources of the whole human race.
Even without new experiments, it may be possible to judge a final theory by
whether it explains all the apparently arbitrary aspects of the standard model.
But there are explanations and explanations. We would not be satisfied with a
theory that explains the standard model in terms of something complicated and
arbitrary, in the way astronomers before Copernicus explained the motions of
planets by piling epicycles upon epicycles.
To qualify as an explanation, a fundamental theory has to be simple-not
necessarily a few short equations, but equations that are based on a simple
physical principle, in the way that the equations of general relativity are
based on the principle that gravitation is an effect of the curvature of
space-time. And the theory also has to be compelling-it has to give us the
feeling that it could scarcely be different from what it is.
When at last we have a simple, compelling, mathematically consistent theory of
gravitation and other forces that explains all the apparently arbitrary features
of the standard model, it will be a good bet that this theory really is final.
Our description of nature has become increasingly simple. More and more is being
explained by fewer and fewer fundamental principles. But simplicity can't
increase without limit. It seems likely that the next major theory that we
settle on will be so simple that no further simplification would be possible.
The discovery of a final theory is not going to help us cure cancer or
understand consciousness, however. We probably already know all the fundamental
physics we need for these tasks. The branch of science in which a final theory
is likely to have its greatest impact is cosmology. We have pretty good
confidence in the ability of the standard model to trace the present expansion
of the universe back to about a billionth of a second after its start.
But when we try to understand what happened earlier than that, we run into the
limitations of the model, especially its silence on the behavior of gravitation
at very short distances. The final theory will let us answer the deepest
questions of cosmology: Was there a beginning to the present expansion of the
universe? What determined the conditions at the beginning? And is what we call
our universe, the expanding cloud of matter and radiation extending billions of
light-years in all directions, really all there is, or is it only one part of a
much larger universe in which the expansion we see is just a local episode?
The discovery of a final theory could have a cultural influence as well, one
comparable to what was felt at the birth of modern science. It has been said
that the spread of the scientific spirit in the 17th and 18th centuries was one
of the things that stopped the burning of witches. Learning how the universe is
governed by the impersonal principles of a final theory may not end mankind's
persistent superstitions, but at least it will leave them a little less room.
Steven Weinberg is a Nobel laureate in physics at the University of Texas. His
books include Dreams of a Final Theory
*Tying together relativity and quantum physics might require 10-dimensional
"string"-or something even stranger
By STEVEN WEINBERG*
The 20th century was quite a time for physicists. By the mid-1970s we had in
hand the so-called standard model, a theory that accurately describes all the
forces and particles we observe in our laboratories and provides a basis for
understanding virtually everything else in physical science.
No, we don't actually understand everything-there are many things, from the
turbulence of ocean currents to the folding of protein molecules, that cannot be
understood without radical improvements in our methods of calculation. They will
provide plenty of interesting continued employment for theorists and
experimenters for the foreseeable future. But no new freestanding scientific
principles are needed to understand these phenomena. The standard model provides
all the fundamental principles we need.
There is one force, though, that is not covered by the standard model: the force
of gravity. Einstein's general theory of relativity gives a good account of
gravitation at ordinary distances, and if we like, we can tack it on to the
standard model. But serious mathematical inconsistencies turn up when we try to
apply it to particles separated by tiny distances-distances about 10 million
billion times smaller than those probed in the most powerful particle
accelerators.
Even apart from its problems in describing gravitation, however, the standard
model in its present form has too many arbitrary features. Its equations contain
too many constants of nature-such as the masses of the elementary particles and
the strength of the fundamental units of electric charge-that are there for no
other reason than that they seem to work. In writing these equations, physicists
simply plugged in whatever values made the predictions of the theory agree with
experimental results.
There are reasons to believe that these two problems are really the same
problem. That is, we think that when we learn how to make a mathematically
consistent theory that governs both gravitation and the forces already described
by the standard model, all those seemingly arbitrary properties will turn out to
be what they are because this is the only way that the theory can be
mathematically consistent.
One clue that this should be true is a calculation showing that although the
strengths of the various forces seem very different when measured in our
laboratories, they would all be equal if they could be measured at tiny
distances-distances close to those at which the above-mentioned inconsistencies
begin to show up.
Theorists have even identified a candidate for a consistent unified theory of
gravitation and all the other forces: superstring theory. In some versions, it
proposes that what appear to us as particles are really stringlike loops that
exist in a space-time with 10 dimensions. But we don't yet understand all the
principles of this theory, and even if we did, we would not know how to use the
theory to make predictions that we can test in the laboratory.
Such an understanding could be achieved tomorrow by some bright graduate
student, or it could just as easily take another century or so. It may be
accomplished by pure mathematical deduction from some fundamental new physical
principle that just happens to occur to someone, but it is more likely to need
the inspiration of new experimental discoveries.
We would like to be able to judge the correctness of a new fundamental theory by
making measurements of what happens at scales 10 million billion times smaller
than those probed in today's laboratories, but this may always be impossible.
With any technology we can now imagine, measurements like those would take more
than the economic resources of the whole human race.
Even without new experiments, it may be possible to judge a final theory by
whether it explains all the apparently arbitrary aspects of the standard model.
But there are explanations and explanations. We would not be satisfied with a
theory that explains the standard model in terms of something complicated and
arbitrary, in the way astronomers before Copernicus explained the motions of
planets by piling epicycles upon epicycles.
To qualify as an explanation, a fundamental theory has to be simple-not
necessarily a few short equations, but equations that are based on a simple
physical principle, in the way that the equations of general relativity are
based on the principle that gravitation is an effect of the curvature of
space-time. And the theory also has to be compelling-it has to give us the
feeling that it could scarcely be different from what it is.
When at last we have a simple, compelling, mathematically consistent theory of
gravitation and other forces that explains all the apparently arbitrary features
of the standard model, it will be a good bet that this theory really is final.
Our description of nature has become increasingly simple. More and more is being
explained by fewer and fewer fundamental principles. But simplicity can't
increase without limit. It seems likely that the next major theory that we
settle on will be so simple that no further simplification would be possible.
The discovery of a final theory is not going to help us cure cancer or
understand consciousness, however. We probably already know all the fundamental
physics we need for these tasks. The branch of science in which a final theory
is likely to have its greatest impact is cosmology. We have pretty good
confidence in the ability of the standard model to trace the present expansion
of the universe back to about a billionth of a second after its start.
But when we try to understand what happened earlier than that, we run into the
limitations of the model, especially its silence on the behavior of gravitation
at very short distances. The final theory will let us answer the deepest
questions of cosmology: Was there a beginning to the present expansion of the
universe? What determined the conditions at the beginning? And is what we call
our universe, the expanding cloud of matter and radiation extending billions of
light-years in all directions, really all there is, or is it only one part of a
much larger universe in which the expansion we see is just a local episode?
The discovery of a final theory could have a cultural influence as well, one
comparable to what was felt at the birth of modern science. It has been said
that the spread of the scientific spirit in the 17th and 18th centuries was one
of the things that stopped the burning of witches. Learning how the universe is
governed by the impersonal principles of a final theory may not end mankind's
persistent superstitions, but at least it will leave them a little less room.
Steven Weinberg is a Nobel laureate in physics at the University of Texas. His
books include Dreams of a Final Theory
- Next message: Morituri-|-Max: "Re: Space travel with lasers"
- Previous message: Jeffrey Turner: "Re: [OT] I hate being American"
- In reply to: caltechdude: "Weinberg & Thomson Aether Physics"
- Next in thread: caltechdude: "Re: Weinberg & Thomson Aether Physics"
- Reply: caltechdude: "Re: Weinberg & Thomson Aether Physics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
